Previous Post
Next Post


A reader writes:

Basically, the ‘loophole’ referred to‘s post Sen. Michael McLachlan [above] to Propose Fix to Loophole in CT’s Assault Weapon Ban allows for firearms to be repaired, maintained, and/or modified. If the ‘loophole’ is closed then replacement parts for the firearms would be illegal? That is nonsensical. In order to maintain the proper function, and, most importantly, safety, of the firearm then parts that wear out over time must be replaced. Barrels, bolt assemblies, firing pins, springs, etc. are all subjected to wear and tear, just like parts on a car . . .

This isn’t a loophole, it is common sense. By forbidding replacement of worn out parts the weapons would become more likely to suffer mechanical malfunctions, up to and including catastrophic malfunctions that could cause significant harm or death to the user and those nearby.

Also, there is the issue as to whether barring the maintenance of such firearms, thus rendering them unserviceable, would constitute a taking by the government. If so, that runs afoul of the 5th & 14th Amendments.

In my mind this Republican politician is unwittingly playing into the gun-grabbers’ long game.  If people cannot maintain their firearms then those firearms are useless.  It is my opinion that it does equate to a governmental taking without saying so.

Anyway, I just thought you might want to take a look, as it is yet another example of the ways they will try to work around the 2A.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. If we make this guys secretaries life a living hell because she has to answer the phone all day we can probably get this to stop just like in Illinois.

    • Dan, if you could make that call, it would be great. I understand that TTAG armed intelligentsia are fighting disarmament advocates in all states of this great nation of ours, but, with apologies to Mr. Zevon, CT is seriously in “Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money. The sh*t has hit the fan and keeps hitting it over, and over, again” mode. Our legislators are out of control and need a reality check.

      And, hey, its a 1-800 number. So the call’s on me, CT taxpayer. You’re welcome. Our friend and fellow 2A enthusiast, Sen. Michael McLachlan, can be reached at:

      [email protected] or at 800 842 1421.

  2. Arms are addressed in the second amendment. The government has no right to take any arms, therefore the 5th amendment does not apply.

    • The right of the people to keep and bear arms is established in the 2nd A, but also the 9th Amendment expands the scope of the protections of the Constitution. I’m surprised it doesn’t come up more often that as the 2nd A establishes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, the 9th A further protects that right from being infringed.

  3. It is my observation that northern republicans are worse for 2A rights than many Southern and Midwestern (rural) Democrats. The things that this guy has proposed do not surprise me very much. He seems like a northern republican straight out of the Chris Christie mold. Well, not quite as large, but whatever.

    • Sure, I was referring to the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments. Disallowing replacement of worn out parts, etc. is similar to the government telling you that you can’t repair your house. So, your house begins to fall apart, it loses value until it is without value at all. Thus, a government taking has occurred, just over a period of time rather than instantly, and, in this case, would also be without compensation or due process.

  4. Am I the only one growing weary of debating the disarmament advocates?

    Just today I had a friend-of-a-friend anti barge into a pleasant pro-2A conversation on Facebook and throw down the gauntlet on mag capacity restrictions. When challenged he threw such a grab bag of arguments at me that it took him 3 separate comments to spew all of them. I’m still considering whether to respond at all. Glad to post the fusillade if anyone is interested in suggesting particularly crafty comebacks.

    Interestingly, I have made a solid half-dozen new FB friends by seeing who is taking the pro-2A side in comments and finding kindred souls.

    • I hope you respond. It’s tiresome, for sure, but the moment we stop responding and correcting the wrong-headed is the moment we let their narrative take over completely.

      Eventually, every condition white I’ve had conversations with that isn’t a complete zealot has ended up with nothing to say but basically, ‘well, I still don’t like thinking about everybody around me having a gun’.

      We should take it as our mission to get every conversation to at least that point.

      • I agree that it’s tiring, and I agree that you still have to do it. If you’re overwhelmed, pick your battles, but don’t give up. Like blehtastic, I consider it a win if I can get them to acknowledge logic and get to the point of admitting it’s an emotional distaste rather than a rational one. Then you can work on the emotions, but that’s the long game. It’s much harder to change hearts than minds.

      • “Eventually, every condition white I’ve had conversations with that isn’t a complete zealot has ended up with nothing to say but basically, ‘well, I still don’t like thinking about everybody around me having a gun’.”

        When the conversation gets to here, you have won the argument. Just say, “Well, your fear/discomfort/dislike of guns does not give you the right to try taking them away from other people. No more than my dislike of your _____ (something about the other person) gives me the right to make it illegal for you to do that. Our Constitutional Rights are there to prevent the majority from telling the minority what they can and cannot do.”

      • With no small trepidation, I waded back into the fray… to find that another pro-2A type had taken up the banner and was attacking the disarmament advocate on his flank.

        Between the two of us bringing the heat, one use of emotional blackmail to get him to debate fairly, and one invocation of Godwin’s Law, we got him to concede that the idea of AWB 2.0 was ridiculous on its face. Then, right at the end, I blew his remaining arguments for mag-capacity limits out of the water by posting a link to the 3D printed AR magazine article.

        Game. Set. Match.

  5. A guy I ride the train with to/from work was arguing that “assault weapons” should be kept @ “sanctioned ranges”. That, he said, would keep others safe from them and gun folks wouldn’t have to worry about gun registration/tracking. When I asked who would sanction/monitor/audit the ranges and the guns potentially kept there he said the government would. I pointed out that if such ranges were monitored you would have defacto gun registration & his response was that because you or I didn’t have to send paperwork to the gov it wasn’t a registration. When I asked what about hunting rifles kept in the same gov sanctioned ranges (gun concentration camp in my mind) his response was that since those aren’t used in the mass shootings they wouldn’t have to be kept there and instead kept @ home. Frustrating the “logic” used by otherwise smart folks.

  6. Easy fix no one shoots his weapon and keeps them pristine order. And the fact machinist can make counterfeit parts. Whats with you new Englanders are you really this stupid? Whats wrong with you?

    • They aren’t always stupid. They have just been lied to all of their lives and either cant accept, don’t know, or don’t care about the truth. I’m from New Jersey and I can say the barrage of propaganda is rather constant. They need to be educated, not berated. Now Bloomy and DiFi, berate them as much as you please, they are simply hypocritical liars.

  7. Will gun parts become the new “money makers” for drug dealers? I can see it now… the guy standing on the corner in the bad neighborhood will be selling Ar-15 firing pins and high cap mags.

  8. Unless the state of Connecticut has its own assault weapon, and that weapon possesses an object called a ban, you need to remove the apostrophe from the word “weapon’s”.

  9. ‘In my mind this Republican politician is unwittingly playing into the gun-grabbers’ long game. If people cannot maintain their firearms then those firearms are useless. ‘

    I would not call this “unwitting” at all. Maybe call it “Crafty” as in a sneaky back door way of obtianing a de facto ban. A useless gun is exactly that, and if they can’t take em from you, the next best thing is to render them useless.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here