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?
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, and I am sure that Jon and his ilk firmly believe 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, 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 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 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.
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 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” 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
that lets out felons, convicted domestic abusers, substance abusers and the mentally ill on account of that whole Federal prohibited person 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.
 Except we know he was doing tactical reloads so we really have no idea how many times he swapped mags.
 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.
 I’ll give you nineteen-hundred eleven guesses as to the model
 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.
 Seriously, that is the name of their equivalent of MN’s Department of Natural Resources
 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.
 Poll taken from January 30 – February 4 with a margin of error of ± 2.3 points.
 Which, mind you, were not “loopholes” when it was passed, they were common-sense exemptions.
 Or who lives in a Constitutional Carry state
 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.