Connecticut's Gun Control: A Rush To Pass Laws That Couldn't Have Prevented Tragedy

Adam LanzaPublic DomainThere's an old saying about locking the barn door after the horse has escaped, but what Connecticut legislators have cooked up, gun control-wise, is more like watching your horse recede into the distance and then nailing all your neighbors' windows and doors shut. The grab bag (PDF) of background checks, gun, ammunition and magazine restrictions, limitations on eligibility to own firearms and a new registry of "weapon offenders" inconveniences people who had nothing to do with the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, and certainly would have had no impact on Adam Lanza's ability to commit that crime. But don't think anybody will get to point that out in a public hearing; the legislation is being sent directly to a vote through an emergency procedure that allows for no stops on the way.

After months of post-massacre hand-wringing, Connecticut's Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety coughed up measures including the following (PDF):

  • A "dangerous weapon offender" registry
     Anybody convicted of any of more than 40 enumerated weapons offenses (mostly gun offenses) or another felonyinvolving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon will have to register with the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. The list will be available only to law enforcement, and registrants will remain on it for five years, not life, but they must update their addresses with state authorities, just like sex offenders.
  • Universal backround checks
    "Immediately upon passage, no pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun can be sold to any Connecticut resident until the buyer undergoes and passes a national criminal background check -- whether such sale is private, at a gun show, or through a dealer"
  • Expanded "assault weapons" ban
    Bans more than 100 more specific weapons in addition to those already illegal in the state, as wel as any weapon that has just one of an expanded list of "military-style features." Currently owned weapons are grandfathered, though under tight restrictions.
  • Ban on "large capacity magazines"
    New state limit of ten rounds. Grandfathers existing magazines subject to registration, though such magazines can never be loaded with more than ten rounds outside the owner's home or a shooting range. Acquiring a new large capacity magazine after the ban, or failing to register an existing one, becomes a class D felony.
  • Eligibility certificates to purchase rifles, shotguns or ammunition
    Certificate applicants must "undergo a firearms safety training course, be fingerprinted, and undergo a national criminal background and involuntary commitment /voluntary admission check."
  • Expanded firearms storage requirements
    Owners must securely store firearms if "any resident of the premises where the firearm is stored is ineligible to possess a firearm" or "poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals."
  • Restrictions on firearms possession by those with mentall illness
    Expands restrictions on those who have been involuntarily committed from 12 to 60 months and imposes a six-month ban on firearms possession on those who voluntarily admit themselves to a psychiatric facility.
  • Ban on possession and sale of "armor piercing ammunition"

The press officer for the Connecticut House Republicans confirmed that the bipartisan bill formalizing these proposals will go directly to a vote tomorrow (Wednesday, April 3) under emergency certification, which precludes referrals to committees and public hearings. That means nobody gets to raise any objections, such as pointing out that the guns Adam Lanza used were registered to his mother. She qualified to own firearms under the old rules and there's no reason to believe the new restrictions would have barred her ownership of guns in any way. She still would have passed the checks and earned her certificates. At 20, Lanza would be too young to purchase rifles under the new law, but, again, he used his mother's guns. Some reports speculate that Adam Lanza feared that his mother might have him committed, or move him out of state to attend a special school, but nothing of the sort had yet happened, so he wouldn't have fallen under the law's mental health restrictions.

Perhaps some of the magazines he used would have fallen under the new law, but even if these proposals had moved forward a year ago, those magazines would have been grandfathered. So would the weapons used, even if they didn't make the cut under the new law.

Gun control advocates in Connecticut have reportedly raised a few objections to the grandfather clauses in the new legislation, but they exist for a reason: To save lawmakers the humility of suffering massive non-compliance. As it is, they'll quietly ignore the fact that few gun owners are likely to register their now-restricted weapons and magazines (and how to register a magazine that has no serial number should be an interesting challlenge). When New Jersey banned "assault weapons" in 1991, defiance was the overwhelming response. Only 947 people registered their rifles as sporting guns for target shooting, 888 rendered them inoperable, and four surrendered them to the police. That’s out of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 firearms affected by the law. Grandfathering in existing equipment in Connecticut is a face-saving measure to avoid a similar outcome.

As for the other measures... Restrictions on people who voluntarily seek care in a psychiatric facility? Really? The only thing ameliorating the monstrous likelihood of deterring troubled people from seeking care through threats of entering them in a database and limiting their rights, is the continuing ability of Connecticut residents to seek treatment in another state, at facilities immune to that law.

And a ban on "armor piercing ammunition?" Define that, please. All ammunition penetrates armor, depending on the toughness of the armor.

Added: If there is any more feel-good but useless requirement than "universal background checks," I can't imagine what it is. It's a requirement that will be obeyed only by the most rigidly law-abiding. Not just criminals, but those with a disinterest in being tracked by the government will continue to buy and sell guns with each other without going through legal procedures. A similar law is widely ignored in California, according to a memo from the National Institute of Justice.

You'll notice that violations of the new Connecticut gun laws all seem to be felonies. Making something a felony is a modern legislator's way of puffing out his or her chest and saying, "I'm really serious." But, while there's no denying that being convicted of a felony carries serious inconveniences in penalties and legal restrictions, we're long past the point where making an act a felony stigmatizes it in any way. Harvey Silverglate famously estimated that Americans commit Three Felonies a Day in the course of going about their normal business. Connecticut residents, at least gun owners, may have to assume they've upped their daily felony allotment to four and just extend care to not be caught to more areas of life.

One of the unwritten rules of politics is that any legislation labeled "bipartisan" is sure to be especially poorly thought out and intrusive. That's also true of legislation that's labeled "emergency" and pushed through in a way that bypasses normal procedures, including public hearings. Connecticut's gun control package satisfies both criteria. It's a true dog's breakfast that could satisfy only those who value restrictions on freedom for their own sake, or else admire train-wrecky lawmaking as an execise in performance art.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Drake||

    Who doesn't love getting a permission slip for a Constitutional right?

  • JW||

    Someone posted this on FB during the SCOTUS gay (marriage) orgy last week.

    Needless to say, the irony was completely lost on them.

  • ||

    Fuck this shit. CT used to be a relatively sane state in terms of guns in a sea of horribly restrictive states (NJ, NY, MA, RI), and got along just fine. There are going to be a lot of people in CT that will be pissed off about this. Fuck you, politicians, and fuck you, gun control advocates.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    One wonders why Remington, Smith & Wesson, and Mossberg haven't pulled a Magpul and gotten the hell out.

    Come to Pittsburgh, merchants of death! We need the jobs.

  • Drake||

    They get big tax breaks. And Dodd did much to keep Colt's shitty products standard issue to our military.

  • ||

    Oh don't worry, the parasite politicians will assuredly make whatever exemptions are necessary to keep the manufacturers in-state. The gun belt has existed in CT since Samuel Colt and they'll make whatever concessions they need to. They know which side their bread is buttered on. No, the only ones they will fuck are law-abiding gun owners.

  • Duke||

    Is this total pussification of all the males in states like CT a product of NPR, liberal arts colleges, Hipsterism, decaf soy lattes, what? I really need to know when all these men became screeching little cowards. The men on NPR even sound like women. it's really hard to tell sometimes.

  • ||

    You seem like an expert on this; can't you answer your own question?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    ONLY BETAS ANSWER A QUESTION WITH A QUESTION!

  • ||

    That was a step up for me, dude. I'm an omega.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Good for you in upping your GAME! Now, the next step is to establish your dominance like all ALPHAS do in nature: mount a beta male and penetrate his anus with your erect penis.

  • fish||

    Jeez HM if you have to draw him a map he can't move up the rankings.

  • ||

    mount a beta male and penetrate his anus with your erect penis.

    Oh shit! I had no idea I was racking up Alpha points this whole time. Where do I trade them in for prizes?

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    No prizes for you. YOU PEOPLE make teh alphas confused insecure about their sexuality.

  • ||

    YOU PEOPLE make teh alphas confused insecure about their sexuality.

    WTF!? Alphas totally stole effected hypermasculinity and NSA sex from my people and then we get no prizes? This shall not stand!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Where do I trade them in for prizes?

    At the outpost.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Actually quite the opposite: asking a question is trying to assert control over a situation. Answering the question is an implicit acceptance of having to justify yourself to the person asking.

    Don't you know that Alphas only answer questions with another question?

  • Coeus||

    ^^^This???

  • Duke||

    The Socratic method fails again.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Hmmm.
    Have you ever posted in H&R before? Let us just say this is what happens, quite often. Oh, and much to the amusement of most of us here (me included).

  • Duke||

    Yes, I have. I notice that most comments usually devolve into stories about butthole pleasures.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Nah, more like we snark at a rapid fire pace, pile on authority fans like Tony, shreik and Tulpa and occasionally fight about pizza or Star Trek.

  • Restoras||

    I thought the Pizza War was won by NY style?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You dipshits elect Democrats to full control of your lives, and you get things like Obamacare and this debacle. When will people learn?

  • $park¥||

    What is there to learn? People are getting exactly what they want.

  • ||

    CT Republicans are basically Democrats, so it's kind of a wash. But then again, CT Democrats are strangely "conservative" in the New England sense, so I guess it's a wash. Again.

  • Restoras||

    When it's too late to do anything about it.

  • mr simple||

    Non-compliance is the only answer to such unconstitutional laws. I fear we are getting closer to the day when legislators will actually push confiscation and the people will be forced to defend themselves against tyranny.

  • Restoras||

    I think people will begin moving to more Bill of Rights friendly states before that happens. At least I hope so. I don't really want to see what happens when confiscation begins in the rural parts of NY, NJ, CT and MA.

  • Drake||

    Not going to happen. But it would be fun to see it tried.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    One ancillary LOL to these laws is that I get to ask my paleo friends if they are now "illegal stockpilers" or "undocumented possessors".

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    WHAT PART OF "UNREGISTERED MAGAZINE" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

  • Acosmist||

    A gotcha that isn't! Hilarious.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's always different when it comes to Brown people for you, isn't it?

  • Scotticus Finch||

    Found one already!

  • Gray Ghost||

    I fear we are getting closer to the day when legislators will actually push confiscation

    If you're talking about CA, they're already there. Taking away someone's gun, registered in his name, just because he cohabits with a newly prohibited person, is unlawful confiscation in my book. Good luck with that 'just compensation for taken property' thing too.

  • Jon Lester||

    Always make your lover keep their own place.

  • ansible||

    lol! is the ban on owning a full automatic or a bazooka or a tank or a jet fighter also unconstitutional?
    ...
    yeah thought not.

    i do want my own jet fighter tho, you know... to protect my home.

  • Duke||

    Because we have learned well the simple lesson of Connecticut: "Stay out of Connecticut."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Absolutely. I've boycotted Connecticut since they passed their ridiculous laws against radar detectors. I urge everyone to do a little research on Connecticut businesses in CT's various Chambers of Commerce and boycott them.

  • ||

    The radar detector bullshit was rescinded years ago, and we all had them anyway even when they were illegal, we just hid them.

  • Tim||

    See? You spoiled it for everyone.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Clearly, if radar detectors were still banned, Lanza would have been caught speeding on his way to the school, and none of this would have ever happened.

  • $park¥||

    The problem is, if you live in MA there is way more work in CT than there is in MA.

  • Tonio||

    It occurs to me that this might be a feature of the planned law - confiscating as many guns as possible from residents, and deterring visits by nonresident gun owners.

  • fish||

    It occurs to me that this might be a feature of the planned law - confiscating as many guns as possible from residents, and deterring visits by nonresident gun owners.

    well duh.......

  • Dweebston||

    I think you're giving CT legislators much too much credit. This is kneejerk reactionary feel-good all together now see how much we care SOMETHING MUST BE DONE legislation at its rankest.

  • ||

    Other than driving through, I haven't been to CT since I gradumacated form high school. It was a shitass state in the 1980's, and it is even worse now.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Making the violations felonies ensures that anyone caught breaking them is never able to own a gun in any state ever again, and no one from the mainstream gun rights movement will make a peep about that ineligibility.

  • StinkEye||

    Making the violations felonies ensures that anyone caught breaking them is never able to own a gun in any state ever again, and no one from the mainstream gun rights movement will make a peep about that ineligibility.

    On the contrary, I suspect that the NRA is probably salivating over this recent smorgasbord of test cases, and the ability to flesh out the vague portions of Heller/McDonald. Now, they just need a "volunteer" to get the ball rolling...

    /With a shifty glance skyward northeast.

  • ||

    Fuck if I'll ever visit my inlaws up there.

  • Tim||

    a win win, I'll wager.

  • Enough About Palin||

    How can one not tell -- even from just a picture -- that this was one fucked-up guy.

  • Zeb||

    Hard to tell from one picture.

  • Enough About Palin||

  • Zeb||

    No. I've just only seen the one picture. I'm convinced now.

  • Zeb||

    Everybody has one picture where they look like a fucking weirdo.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    Violence solved! Good night, everybody!

  • ||

    imposes a six-month ban on firearms possession on those who voluntarily admit themselves to a psychiatric facility.

    Dear state and federal legislators: please continue to find new and exciting ways to deter people who want help from actually seeking it. No one does it quite like you do!

    (Also, once again I love Tucille most of all because he mentioned not only this but also the Silverglate book.)

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    Yeah, fuck this shit.

    Are there any mental health advocacy groups that are speaking up about this bull? Perusing NAMI it doesn't look like they've said jack shit.

  • Tonio||

    Because most disabled/MH advocacy groups are made up of liberals. "Advocacy" means more free stuff and preferential treatment from the govt.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    It seems that way, unfortunately.

    I'm just hoping there's some libertarian-leaning "fringe" group to support.

  • ||

    Are there any mental health advocacy groups that are speaking up about this bull?

    Lol. Only to support the law, I'd bet. Remember that psychiatry is only a couple generations removed from forcing lobotomies on people and is premised largely on subjectively valuing behavior within a spectrum of "normalcy" and pathologizing any deviation. Given the nature of the field it tends to attract a lot of authoritarian fucks who love this type of legislation.

  • ||

    Well, if some person who wants help doesn't get it and then goes on a shooting rampage and kills a bunch of children, maybe then they can get a full ban! It's win-win!

  • John||

    You beat me to it. That is exactly what they want. More dead kids please!!1

  • John||

    There is nothing unintended about this. Think of it this way. These clowns totally understand that requiring parental notification would totally discourage young girls from having abortions.

    The difference is, here they want people not to get help in the hopes more people go nuts and shoot people justifying stricter gun laws.

  • ||

    I don't know, I think they literally do not have enough of an ability to understand the mindset that would want to protect one's right to bear arms, and think that people will just see a doctor anyway. I mean, there are already involuntary commitment laws that have nothing to do with gun ownership per se, and progressives/mental health advocates actually think those laws are helpful. I really don't get it.

  • John||

    They are just stupid.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    It's cognitive dissonance mixed with confirmation bias.

    They hold so tightly to the belief that "gunz r evul" that their brains go into repress and deny mode whenever something doesn't fit their narrative. This reinforces their belief that they KNOW that guns are the problem, but they just need stricter laws. Wash, rinse, repeat.

  • John||

    The gun owner registration. We all know where that ends. How long before you can't own a gun within a mile of school? Remember these people are so fucking stupid and superstitious, they honestly believe sex offender registries protect children.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    How long before you can't own a gun within a mile of school?

    That runs afoul of Heller.

  • John||

    Which is only as good as the five justices who voted for it's health. And further, cities like Chicago and DC already ignore Heller with no consequence.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "And further, cities like Chicago and DC already ignore Heller with no consequence."

    Oh, there are consequences, John. Hundreds of them.

  • Loki||

    I think he meant no consequences for the fucktard pols who ignore Heller. Obviously there's consequences for all the people who can't defend themselves against armed killers who ignore the laws anyway, buy who gives a shit about them?

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    As for the other measures... Restrictions on people who voluntarily seek care in a psychiatric facility? Really?

    This is one of the things most seriously infuriating me about some of these new measures.

    From http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/c.....VrStOyOUh4

    Requires DMHAS, in consultation with SDE, to administer a mental health first aid training program that teaches people to recognize the signs of mental disorders in children and young adults and connect them with services. Also allows boards of education to require teachers and other school employees to participate in mental health first aid training.

    1. "First aid"?!?!

    2. Hey everybody, let's play spot the crazy!

  • John||

    Mental health first aid training will quickly become, be sure to report any of your children whose parents are skeptical of government or engage in subversive activities like gun ownership.

  • space junk||

    Exactly, it's just another form of citizens being recruited to spy on each other.

    The teachers already think they know better than the parents in the first place.

  • Tim||

    "The feel good legislation of the year"
    -JD. Tucille, Reason Magazine

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Good post for the most part Mr Tucille, but you seem to have overlooked the storage requirement. If Lanza was ineligible to possess the rifle/handguns due to his age, then his mom would have to have them locked up which may have prevented the shooting.

  • John||

    Yeah because the mother was so fucking aware that her kid was a sick freak who needed to be locked up. You are kidding yourself if you think she would have locked up her weapons.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm not talking about the mental illness I'm talking about the age.

    Personally I wouldn't have much problem with a storage requirement and universal background checks PROVIDED the system could be set up to make it impossible for govt to use these to make a registry of gun owners, slow/stop gun sales by hobbling the NICS system, or make gun ownership too expensive for poor people.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    But Tulpa, NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT TAKING YOUR GUNS, so a registry doesn't matter.

    Nobody. Not a single one.

  • John||

    So you are all for a system that can never be created. Got it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Gun rights proponents need to stop just saying "no no no no" ad infinitum.

    We need to show that we're willing to look for solutions to what everyone admits are problems.

  • ||

    You really are a bootlicker.

  • John||

    Sollution to what problem? Look you fucking moron. We are no more going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals than we are going to keep drugs out of the hands of users. So any solution you come up with is going to be ignored by criminals and do nothing but disarm the law abiding public.

    Go take your "solutions" and shove them up your ass sideways you fascist little bastard.

  • tarran||

    The sad thing is that Tulpa thinks he's being all Socratic and forcing people to examine their assumptions, when in fact he's just demonstrating his bitterness that there exist humans who don't think like him.

    Reason becomes far more educational and interesting when one filters him out, since he really adds nothing to the conversation. Even Tony is a more interesting person than Tulpa.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Because you feel more threatened by me than you do by openly leftist shills like Tony or shrike.

    I question TEAM LIBERTARIAN's own brand of lazy thinking from its own premises. And that has to be scary.

  • SDN||

    No, I just put you on the same list of targets as Tony or shrike. I'm a major fan of the Let It Burn philosophy because of the opportunity for a plague of lead poisoning to cull the liberal herd.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    What a defeatist attitude.

    We are no more going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals than we are going to keep drugs out of the hands of users.

    How do the criminals get those guns? Is there a way to cut that supply off without infringing on peaceful gun owners' rights?

    I'm willing to ask those questions; many 2A proponents are not, and you'd better start.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes...because just a wee bit of tyranny never hurt anyone.

  • ||

    "C'mon, just the tip."

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    It would be great if that would work, but the fact is that it's death by a thousand cuts with these people.

    Just keep adding "reasonable" restriction after restriction until nobody (legally) has a gun.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Restoras||

    Presumably the idea behind this legislation is to prevent another Newtown. Explain to me how this legislation will do that.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I don't admit the gun was the problem, any more than I admit that the car was the problem in a.... hit and run.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Jesus Christ, guns are already restricted. Too much so in states like CT, IL, and CA. I can't go and order one online, or from Gunbroker, without going through some FFL. Even after getting my CHL, there's a laundry list of places I can't carry. God help me if I try carrying in a non-reciprocal state, or if I accidentally open carry in TX.

    Further, I'd love a suppressor. Yay, lower hearing loss. It's not worth the hassle, IMO, even here.

    The point is, the gun grabbers keep screaming gimme, gimme, gimme, and only rarely is the dialogue turning to restoring some of the rights we had, say in the 1920s. I don't like universal registration or these idiotic storage requirements, but tie them to 50 state, fully reciprocal, shall issue CCW, and I might go for it. That would be a compromise. But since the other side isn't compromising at all, why shouldn't I keep saying, "No, no, no?"

  • Loki||

    I don't like universal registration or these idiotic storage requirements, but tie them to 50 state, fully reciprocal, shall issue CCW, and I might go for it. That would be a compromise. But since the other side isn't compromising at all, why shouldn't I keep saying, "No, no, no?"

    ^THIS^ * 1000. The fucking gun grabbers aren't offering any kind of compromise so why the fuck should we?

  • Jim in Denver||

    There's a guy in my office who seems to think that if we give up something to keep the gun-grabbers from trying to take even more from us it's a compromise.

    Uh no it's fucking blackmail.

  • Almanian!||

    No no no no no.

    And "fuck off, slaver", while I'm at it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Almaniac:

    See how far that gets you in the political arena. Unless you want to be impotently complaining after we have UK style gun control because the grabbers have gotten 51%, I suggest you come up with something better.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What? When I did that gag @ 2:19 it wasn't funny enough for you?

    Racist.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Bah, I didn't refresh before posting. I should have known that someone would make that connection too.

    You're the racist! You can't even decide what race you want to be! HA!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You're the racist! You can't even decide what race you want to be! HA!

    Blast! Foiled again!

  • Zeb||

    OK. When everyone admits they are problems, let's talk.

  • Jordan||

    What problem? The average American's chances of being shot during his/her lifetime are pretty much 0.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The average non-criminal American (particularly a white male non-poor American) has an even lower chance of being assaulted by a cop. Yet Reason cares about cop assaults.

  • Randian||

    It couldn't possibly be because of the unique position the State has in terms of the use of force, could it?

    Nah.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I think I know why Reason is concerned about cop assaults, and I agree with their concern of course.

    But to act as if people getting shot is not a problem is ostrichesque.

  • Restoras||

    Yes, Reason cares about cop assaults becasue cop assaults are an infringement on individual liberty and a perfect example (one of many) of the problems with excessive power in the hands of an unaccountable bureaucracy.

    Just like gun laws.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Being shot is an infringement on individual liberty, too.

    Not all coercion arises from the state.

  • Jordan||

    We have laws against shooting people. You want more? End the Drug War. Anything else is either authoritarianism or window-dressing.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Really, man? You don't know the difference between personal infringement of liberty (being shot/beaten by some asshole), and a institutionalized infringement of liberty (being shot/beaten by a cop)

    Here, let me 'splain it to you.

    If some asshole pulls a gun on me, breaks into my house, starts beating me, etc. and I put a bullet in his brain, it's self defense. The other guy is the "bad guy"

    If some asshole COP pulls a gun on me, breaks into my house, starts beating me, etc. and I put a bullet in his brain, I'm a cop killer. I'm the "bad guy"

    The reason could be the exact same. Perhaps he didn't like the way I was talking to him. Cops get away with shit like this all the time, private citizens don't. And that's the reason Reason cries out about cop assaults.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Cops get away with shit like this all the time, private citizens don't.

    Wrong and wrong.

    Far more private citizens get away with assault than cops do.

    While cop abuse is a problem, it's not something that happens "all the time". If it's 2 AM in a bad neighborhood, would you rather be in front of a police station or a crack house?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Here, let me rephrase it for you in specific terms so that your minuscule brain can comprehend.

    I was specifically referring to those people committing the assault who were CAUGHT. Of course people who aren't caught get away with it, they haven't been caught. HOWEVER, a citizen that gets caught doing any of those things will have the book thrown at them. They will certainly be charged with a crime and probably sent to jail. A COP, on the other hand, that is caught doing those things faces a very small chance of being prosecuted. More likely than not, they will be placed on administrative leave while they do an internal investigation and then cleared of all wrongdoing.

    THAT is what we have a problem with.

    Now, was that clear enough for you or should I use smaller words?

  • Restoras||

    If it's 2 AM in a bad neighborhood, would you rather be in front of a police station or a crack house

    That depends. If I can have my .45, I'll take the crack house.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Ditto, Restoras.

    Don't forget to say hello to Tulpa's mom while you're there.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Careful how you talk to me INMIY. I could have been your stepfather if not for my aversion to back hair and genital maggot infestations.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Look who's got jokes. Nice one, Tulpy.

    Now if only you could apply those brain cells to logic and reasoning, you might be a decent human being.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Being shot is an infringement on individual liberty, too.

    Jesus, you sound Sarah Brady.

    Don't you have a David Frum article somewhere to fap over?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So you don't think being shot is an infringement on individual liberty?

  • sgs||

    "So you don't think being shot is an infringement on individual liberty?"

    Well, since you're the one who likes to argue edge cases, no, I don't. I think it is sometimes an infringement on individual liberty, but if I own a body armor manufacturer and I wear a piece of my kit in a demonstation, during which I get shot in order to show it works, then it is clearly not an infringement on personal liberty.

    You ignore that when it is an infringement, there is an injury/attempt to injure. That exists without the instrument, in this case a gun, which is why you ignore it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I mean, this is what pisses me off (here and on PAFOA). Any time someone starts speculating on a way around the conflict they get identified with Brady and Piers Morgan and Bloomberg.

    The NRA of course has been masterful at protecting gun rights by finding ways around, for which it's hated by the doctrinaires.

  • Restoras||

    Not all coercion arises from the state

    Absolutely true. We have laws to punish indivudual who do us evil, and the Bill of Rights to protect us from our government.

  • crashland||

    Which problems exactly?

    But yeah, we need to stop saying no no no and start pushing to redress the past legislation infringing upon our rights.

    Repeal the Hughes amendment, repeal the GCA, repeal the NFA... Keep pushing to expand the right to arms not beg for scraps.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Fuck off, slaver.

    Take my rights slowly and incrementally, or swiftly and at once - you are still taking them.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Storage requirements can be crafted in a way that takes away no rights at all.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Ok, I'll bite.

    HOW exactly are you going to require that I lock up my guns without taking away my right to defend myself?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm only supporting a storage requirement for when the guns are NOT under your immediate control. If you have a gun in the room with you when you're up late at night doing your taxes, I'm not proposing any restriction on that. The storage requirement is only for times when you don't have immediate control over the arms.

  • ||

    If you have a gun in the room with you when you're up late at night doing your taxes, I'm not proposing any restriction on that. The storage requirement is only for times when you don't have immediate control over the arms.

    Cool. So you can actually exercise your 2nd Amendment rights and your inherent human right to self defense if you're up late doing your taxes, but not, say, 20 minutes later after you've gone to bed? So essentially, the home invasion robber scoping the neighborhood knows he just needs to find the houses with the lights off if he wants to make off with some of your stuff while you fuck around with your gun lock and reload all your mags while in a stupor at 3 in the morning.

    This is past full-retard, Tulpa. Seriously. A lot of the time you say things are stupid or antithetical to libertarian principles, but it's easy to excuse. This... this is past Tony territory.

  • Restoras||

    Perhaps, but you still haven't provided any evidence that storage requirements will prevent any more Newtowns. Which begs the question: Why have any storage requirement?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Murder laws didn't prevent Newtown either; why have murder laws?

  • Restoras||

    Worst strawman ever.

    Murder is bad. Murders deserve to be punished. I think we can both agree on that, unless you don't beleive murderers should be punished.

    Guns are inanimate objects incapable of participating in evil or good, only used as a tool wielded by a person. Why have storage requirements for inanimate objects, especially when you have provided no proof whatsoever that government mandated storage would prevent said objects from being used in any proscribed action? By your logic, since hammers are used for more murders each year than rifles, shouldn't hammers also be properly stored?

  • mgd||

    while (1) {
    printf "no ";
    }

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    It would help if gun control advocates could give us some sort of idea what their endpoint is. When will we have "enough" gun control?

    Their answer is basically "never". Every time a compromise is made with them they just come back for more later. That's not compromise; that's just a temporary stay of execution.

    And every time one of them says "we're not trying to take your guns away" I ask the obvious question: why not?

    Is it because they believe that there is an individual right to own a gun? No. They deny the right exists, or use bullshit like that oxymoron "collective right".

    Do they believe guns are useful self-defense? No. They cite bullshit studies by academics that "prove" you're more likely to hurt yourself or get the gun taken away from you.

    Do they support the idea of guns as a means to restrain tyrannical government? Fuck no. They insist that's "crazy" and anyway tyranny can't possibly happen here!

    So in the end the only reason they aren't trying to directly ban guns is political expediency. Instead of a de jure gun ban they're going for a de facto gun ban: make legal ownership too difficult and expensive for ordinary citizens.

  • Mr. Soul||

    Personally, I have a problem with anything proactively restricting guns.
    Dont tell me how to store them to your liking, prosecute me for criminal negligence when my guns are used in a crime.

  • playa manhattan||

    I think the mother was probably very aware of the problem, but preferred to ignore it .

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You can never do wrong in a mother's eyes,
    No matter what you may do,
    She will always forgive any wrong you've done,
    And she'll open her warm heart to you.

    Though you've been the cause of her tears she's cried,
    When you've strayed the straight narrow path,
    Oh you can never do wrong in a mother's eyes,
    For she sees her son through her heart.

    She knelt by her bed many lonely nights,
    While waiting for you to come home,
    And prayed to the Lord to keep you right
    And guard you wherever you roam.

    Though you're not the man that you might have been,
    And you feel ashamed of your past.
    Oh you can never do wrong in a mother's eyes,
    For she sees her son through her heart.

    Spoken by Slim and sung by Joy in unison
    A careless mistake can bring you shame,
    And troubles just hang over you,
    And a father might say you've disgraced the name,
    But the love of a mother stays true,
    Although you've been careless with Cupid's bow,
    And you falsely directed his dart.
    Oh you can never do wrong in a mother's eyes,
    For she sees her son through her heart.

    You can never do wrong in a mother's eyes,
    For she sees her son through her heart.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, let's speculate about things we know nothing about and try to guess the state of mind of a person we've never met.

  • $park¥||

    Yes, let's speculate about things we know nothing about and try to guess the state of mind of a person we've never met.

    You make it sound like this is a new thing.

  • T||

    Okay. There are aliens on Alpha Centauri and I think you're a pathological liar.

  • ||

    I heard that she had all her guns locked up except for a .22. After he killed her with it, he had all the time he wanted to work on the safe with a crowbar. Is the official report out yet? I'm curious if that's true.

  • Drake||

    Official reports about that, and what weapon he actually used in the shooting, don't seem to be coming out. Wouldn't want to side-track the knee-jerk legislation.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    There's no evidence of what Warty's saying, either.

  • Drake||

    Correct. None against it either.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So it has the same status as saying his mom told him to kill those kids for the glory of the Tea Party.

  • Drake||

    And a law against bad motherly advise would be just as appropriate.

  • Chris Mallory||

    The Official Report did say he killed his mother with the bolt action .22.

  • Restoras||

    Curious how all this legislation is being rammed through before we actually know what happened. Actually, on second thought it isn't curious at all, is it?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    We will never know. The official reports and reports from officials have changed many, many times and have always been contradictory to themselves and common sense. There is no way to independently verify anything, ANYTHING that any govt person has reported. I tho't I'd seen or heard every wack job conspiracy hypothesis, but the ones coming out of the Sandy Hook incident amaze me. And the thing is, most of them are internally consistent, quite possible and more verifiable than the govt's story.

  • WTF||

    Because no one would ever disregard such an unenforceable law, and he would never have just killed her and taken away the key.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Because locking up the family car prevents a teenager from ever joyriding in it, right?

    The piece of shit blew her away while she was asleep. Why do you think he wouldn't have been able to get the keys to the safe off her---one way or the other---if he was willing to go to that extreme?

    The storage requirement is an attempt to keep stupid people from being stupid: leaving their loaded pistol to roll around the floor of their truck, or sitting in a nightstand drawer where their 4 year old can get to it. Since they are stupid people, the requirements will be largely ignored by them, many of whom are ineligible to own a firearm anyway, yet these requirements will do nothing to prevent the sort of mass shootings the politicians are up in arms about.

    Storage wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, or probably Phoenix (Whose guns did words-boy use anyway? His own or his parents?)

  • playa manhattan||

    Grammar boy bought his own glock legally.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It was Tucson, and it was his own gun that he used.

    I'm mostly NOT concerned with mass shootings but the more common, smaller crimes committed using stolen guns.

  • Restoras||

    Becasue if the guns are registered and locked upthere is no way they'd ever be stolen?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's sure as hell less likely.

  • Restoras||

    Really? Do you have any proof of that?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm referring to the locking, not the registering.

    If you question whether locking things up makes them less likely to be stolen... I don't think we can even have a discussion, as I'm not sure what you think the purpose of locking things up is.

  • Restoras||

    Do you have any proof that locking up a gun will prevent it from being stolen?

    I understand that you beleive that if I lock up my guns then any thief who enters my house will simply bypass that safe. Even though thieves presumably know that safes likely contain valuable property. And that tall safes likely have guns in them. Yes, I'm sure any thief would just go right for my 60" flat screen and not for the contents of my safe.

    People lock up their HOMES all the time and this still does not prevent them from being robbed. They lock up their CARS too and that doesn't seem to prevent car theft. So explain to me how locking up my guns will prevent them from being stolen.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Do you have any proof that locking up a gun will prevent it from being stolen?

    No, which is why I didn't make that claim.

    Locking things up makes them LESS LIKELY to be stolen. Not IMPOSSIBLE.

    People lock up their HOMES all the time and this still does not prevent them from being robbed. They lock up their CARS too and that doesn't seem to prevent car theft.

    True, but people who leave their homes and cars unlocked are more likely to have them stolen (all else being equal).

  • Restoras||

    Locking things up makes them LESS LIKELY to be stolen. Not IMPOSSIBLE

    Exactly. So locking them up WON'T prevent guns from being stolen, but you want to advocate for it anyway becasue DO SOMETHING. Got it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Putting people in jail for murder doesn't prevent murder, either. Does that mean we don't want laws against murder?

  • Restoras||

    Of course not. But you are advocating for the restriction of law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights without a shred of evidence that it would do anything to prevent the activities you are trying to stop.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Based on your logic Tulpa...

    Putting people in jail is PUNISHMENT. Therefore making everyone lockup their guns is punishing everyone.

  • Gray Ghost||

    So we're blaming the victims of a crime for the bad deeds later caused by the non-minor criminal using the victim's property. And that blame includes jail time and fines. Got it.

    We don't do this in pretty much any other area of personal property theft. (Explosives or ultra-hazardous items might be an exception) I'm not responsible if some douchebag steals my car and uses it to plow into a school bus of nuns holding puppies. Even if I leave the keys in the ignition. The criminal's intervening illegal act ends my liability. As it should.

    Why then are we changing 500+ years of Anglo-American law because we have a hardon against guns? And John's right: this will be used as another cudgel to screw poor people out of owning guns. Not that they need another one.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm not saying you'd be held liable for murder if someone steals your gun and commits murder with it.

    You'd be criminally liable ONLY for failing to securely store the firearm. What the thief does with it is not imputed to you.

  • T||

    How many layers of lock do I need, Tulpa? 2? 3? 6? Why is one lock between my guns and the rest of the world insufficient? In any other area, locking my stuff is all the due diligence I need. Why do I need more for guns?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Because it's hard to imagine how a flat screen TV can be used to threaten or kill someone.

  • Jim in Denver||

    How about kitchen knives, golf clubs or chainsaws?

  • Ron||

    since when do children not know how to get into their parents locked items. A Safe would probably been of no use and in many case the parents tell the kids how to access the safe in case of an emergency.

  • playa manhattan||

    How in the hell can you register a magazine? Mine don't have serial numbers.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They could put a stamp on the magazine to indicate it was registered.

  • playa manhattan||

    Maybe. It would really suck to get charged with a class D felony if your stamp faded or wore off, though. I'm sure they have top men working on it.

  • Restoras||

    A stamp? Made of what? Using what kind of adhesive? How many uses would the stamp survive for?

  • ||

    What are the specs of this stamp? I'm only curious because forging it will be hilariously lucrative in your proposed future.

  • Restoras||

    Not too mention that when every home has a 3D printer you'll just be able to run off a few copies when you need them.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't support the magazine restrictions except for FAMEPWs and SAHEPWs in section 7 of my DWARF legislation.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I am not one to normally resort to straight ad hom, but..

    I support you fucking off, slaver.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    Also

    Owners must securely store firearms if "any resident of the premises where the firearm is stored is ineligible to possess a firearm" or "poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals."

    So does that mean if somebody's kid shoots himself the parents are sent to the clink? They should have seen it coming!

  • John||

    It is better than that. Someone breaks into your house or your drunk brother in law gets into a fight with your sister and you call the cops to break it up. So the cops go into the house and see that your guns are not "securly stored" and boom you are going to jail and can't own guns anymore.

    And further, how do you store them without a gun safe that costs hundreds or even thousands of dollars? This is just disarming poor people.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The law wouldn't apply to someone breaking in; it applies to residents.

    The cost concern is an issue; perhaps it could be remedied by only requiring a necessary and difficult-to-obtain part to be stored securely, like the bolt on a rifle. This would make the necessary storage less expensive and still make it harder for thieves to immediately use stolen guns.

  • John||

    Yes it would fuck head. If your guns are not properly stored, you are in violation of the law. And if you store the bolt away from the gun, it is pretty fucking useless for self defense, which is the whole point of owning it.

    WTF is wrong with you?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't like the CT law as written.

    BUT, a storage requirement could be written that would balance the need to cut down on storage costs AND make it more difficult for thieves to steal usable guns.

  • John||

    It could be written to make guns completely fucking useless for self defense.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Of course, but I wouldn't write it that way. I would not require secure storage of arms that the owner or legitimate possessor was in physical control of.

  • tarran||

    John,

    Why are you engaging with Tulpa?

    I mean I understand why Epi does it; Epi enjoys the delicious sight of people who allow his words to cause them anguish writhing in torment.

    But you? It's not quite at debating Shriek levels of silliness but it's pretty close.

  • ||

    You really are a bootlicker.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Lickers gotta lick, Epi.

  • mr simple||

    Or making them criminals. But it totally doesn't infringe on any rights.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The second part is too vague to enforce, but I have no problem with the first part. Gun owners have responsibilities that DVD player owners do not.

  • Tim||

    We all enjoy the effective and necessary FBI warning we are forced to read before playing the Gilligan's Island season one collector's edition.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I really hate that. What do you mean I can't skip this?--I've already seen the shit.

  • Tim||

    If anything the blasted warning should be in Chinese- which dialect I don't know, but I do know that they do 90% of the pirating.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Exactly. And if I'm a pirate, I rather suspect I don't care about the warning.

  • ||

    You'd just need it in Traditional and Simplified and it'd cover all the Chinese speakers.

    You need it in Spanish too, just to stop the Mexican dude who sells badly pirated DVDs out of his trunk to my coworkers, even after I offer to give them higher quality ones for free.

  • Loki||

    We all enjoy the effective and necessary FBI warning we are forced to read before playing the bootlegged copy that a friend of mine bought on his last trip to Thailand Gilligan's Island season one collector's edition.

  • Gray Ghost||

    So why don't we have similar restriction for automobiles? If you live in a residence with someone whose license's been yanked, for DWI or driving without insurance, are you required to securely lock up your car and its keys too? If not, why not? WAG, drunks/reckless drivers kill about an order of magnitude more people than firearms do, and over 2 orders of magnitude more than accidental firearms deaths.

    And how do you plan on enforcing the storage requirement, other than after the fact?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I've thought about this quite a bit. I even have a bill drafted called the Dangerous Weapons And Repeating Firearms Act (DWARF). Catchy, no?

    It would create a class of arms called Mid-Energy Projectile Weapons which propel a projectile with kinetic energy between 1,600 and 24,000 joules. Semiautomatic MEPWs (defined as those which require only one motion from the user to launch another projectile) would have a storage requirement (among other restrictions) as I stated above (ie, a difficult-to-replace and necessary part is all that needs to be stored), and this would be ensured by making owners of SAMEPWs have the storage inspected by an LEO, FFL, or ATF representative once every year, and they would have to keep this certificate as proof of compliance if the SAMEPW is ever stolen.

    This would not produce a registry since you could choose any LEO (not necessarily from your jurisdiction) or FFL, and the inspection could be done at a time of your choosing so it wouldn't be an invasion of privacy.

  • entropy||

    Fuck you.

  • Zeb||

    No. Having to have a LEO in my house at any time is an invasion of privacy. Having to inform a LEO that I own any particular gun is also an invasion of privacy.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I dunno, if my government thinks it's okay for totally insane people like the leadership of North Korea to have nukes, why can't honest, hardworking Americans?

  • Tim||

    + 2 megatons

  • Pro Libertate||

    To be fair, the North Koreans only have fission bombs, not fusion, so we're really talking kiloton yields. After all, the Founders didn't have H-bombs.

  • ||

    the Founders didn't have H-bombs

    That's incredibly presentist of you. If the Egyptians had nuclear weapons why wouldn't the founders?

    /History Channel

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    I should bring my ancient Egyptian H-bomb onto Pawn Stars.

    I'm sure I'll be able to negotiate Rick up to fifty bucks.

  • Pro Libertate||

    They didn't have H-bombs. They had antigravity and pyramid power.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Except you don't have to have an LEO in your home at any time; you can bring an FFL if you want. And the LEO doesn't have to be from your jurisdiction anyway.

  • Jordan||

    Except you don't have to have an LEO in your home at any time; you can bring an FFL if you want. And the LEO doesn't have to be from your jurisdiction anyway.

    Oh, wow that makes it all better. What the fuck is wrong with you?

  • ||

    You're the ultimate combination of authority-fellating bootlicker and autistically anal rule fetishist. I'm stunned you're not a career bureaucrat.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're not one of my constituents so I don't give a shit what you think. I work for the people, not special interests.

  • ||

    You work for a community college.

  • ||

    He did before they fired him for incompetence. When was the last time you heard him talk about students? He probably does something even more pathetic now, like sell insurance or something.

  • crashland||

    Which area in Western PA do you represent?

  • Gray Ghost||

    So you're inviting the cops into your home (or wherever you store your firearms) once a year under your plan, should you own a semi-auto rifle with a ME over 1200 ft-pounds. And you don't see this as a massive infringement of privacy? This is reasonable to you?

    Never mind the hilariously naive idea that the cops won't be keeping a copy of your "certificate", if only to cover their own ass when an accidental shooting happens with one of your guns.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You can't make a registry with certificates scattered all over the country. This is how the NICS system is supposedly designed to prevent a registry; the only permanent record of a background check is kept by the FFL (assuming ATF is following the law and destroying NICS records after 72h).

  • Gray Ghost||

    I do not have the faith that you do that a system of scattered, diffuse registry information will be a significant obstacle for the state towards compiling a complete registry. Especially in a non-firearm friendly state, that's likely to give you as much choice in who examines your stuff as you have picking your doctor under single-payer. Again, the implementation details are what's going to make your plan completely unacceptable.

    Not to mention that it wouldn't surprise me at all if this version of BATFE---or whatever they call themselves now---wasn't indirectly recording the results of NICS checks, actual law against it be damned.

    Again, your plans calls for the cops to show up and walk around your property a minimum of once a year. Provided you're actually serious, that's evidence enough of a gulf so vast that I don't think that position and mine could ever come to agreement.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not to mention that it wouldn't surprise me at all if this version of BATFE---or whatever they call themselves now---wasn't indirectly recording the results of NICS checks, actual law against it be damned.

    Well, I'm sure they're doing this already. The weak point in the current "diffuse" NICS records system is that the ATF can "forget" to delete their records and there's no penalty for their doing this; even if there were it would have to be meted out by DOJ (good luck).

    A good system would have some sort of independent check on the ATF making sure they weren't holding on to records, with some horrendous penalty if they were found to be breaking the rules (like NICS being suspended for a year, or being prosecuted by state govts).

    Again, your plans calls for the cops to show up and walk around your property a minimum of once a year.

    Not really; you tell the cop (or FFL) when you want him or her to visit, then walk them from the front door to your safe; they look at it, write up a certificate, and you walk them out. It's not allowing them to look around your property.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    ...walk them from the front door to your safe; they look at it, write up a certificate, and you walk them out. It's not allowing them to look around your property.

    What a good, compliant little citizen you are, Tulpy. I bet you'd be fine with authorities inspecting your anus as long as you could schedule the appointment.

    "Well, it's for your own good. You could have colorectal cancer and they're just there to check. Don't worry, they won't touch your balls while they're down there." /tulpy logic

  • Gray Ghost||

    Not really; you tell the cop (or FFL) when you want him or her to visit, then walk them from the front door to your safe; they look at it, write up a certificate, and you walk them out. It's not allowing them to look around your property.

    Your experience with administrative searches does not dovetail with mine. ProL, anyone else that's had to ever deal with an inspection by federal regulators or other governmental employees, is this how it works? The subject of the search gets to restrict access when the LEO/regulatory agent is on the property? Or do they pretty much go where they feel like it to get the info they want?

    Ugh. You want a compromise, that'll still be a large hindrance to poor people, but still better than the abortion you're proposing? Have the firearms owner send in proof of a suitable storage apparatus: a receipt for a safe, bio-lock gun vault, what have you. You still are at registration, but at least this way the cops aren't on your property once a year. Then use the lack of secure storage against them when the neighbor kid comes over and removes the back of their head with your loaded AR.

    Using a storage requirement to further punish the victims of theft is anathema and wrong for reasons already stated.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The subject of the search gets to restrict access when the LEO/regulatory agent is on the property? Or do they pretty much go where they feel like it to get the info they want?

    You're talking about enforcement of completely different laws/regs. Most regulatory inspections are not ones that you can choose the timing of, either; but I'm writing the law so that you choose the time and you choose the amount of access they have (so long as you afford them access to the storage).

    There are such restricted-access police visits in place already, of course. If you call the police to report your car stolen, for example, and you let them into your living room to fill out the report, that doesn't give them the right to search your entire house on a whim. They are there FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE and if they try to stretch that the search will be ruled illegal.

  • Loki||

    walk them from the front door to your safe

    And if the safe is in the master bedroom, which in most houses is in the back of the house and/or second floor they just walked through your house, invited in, which means they don't need a warrant, and anything they happen see (they do have EYES, afterall) is fair game.

    I know, I know, "If you're not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to worry about." The refrain of the professional authority fellator. Again, fuck off slaver.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If you can't move your illegal activity/items out of view of the path from the outside door to your safe when you have a gorram year to prepare for the visit, get a friggin FFL to do the inspection.

  • Calidissident||

    If this was anyone other than Tulpa, I would assume they joking.

  • Mr. Soul||

    when the cops show up, just say you are performing an abortion in your gun safe. The right to privacy should kick in then.

  • WTF||

    "The inspection anal probe could be done at a time of your choosing, so it wouldn't be an invasion of privacy."

    You actually think it's still April Fool's and this an attempt at a joke, right?

  • Loki||

    Fuck off slaver.

  • Jim in Denver||

    This has got to be pure troll, you know April fools is over right?

  • Zeb||

    I have a problem with it. Lots of the reasons which make people ineligible to possess a firearm are stupid and wrong.

  • John||

    What Grey Ghost said. If someone's husband and son is an unrepentant alcoholic with three DUI convictions, why shouldn't have to lock up your car keys?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not really a good comparison. A better analogy would be that you'd have to take steps to make your vehicle is undriveable without the keys.

  • Almanian!||

    shorter Tulip: "derp"

  • Enough About Palin||

    "The second part is too vague to enforce, but I have no problem with the first part. Gun owners have responsibilities that DVD player owners do not."

    Really, dipshit? So what about the owners of knives and TV's?

    Michigan man convicted of killing woman by stabbing her 54 times, dropping TV on her head

  • Enough About Palin||

    Murder Dude was only 21 and they gave him life without the possibility of parole. At least that is a plus.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    We need an Andy Griffith to tell us when we can use our bullet, dammit!

  • Tim||

    We should also ban pick up trucks and people named Travis while we're at it.

  • Almanian!||

    If people would just stop resembling that Dorner fellow and disguising their Honda Insights and Dodge Darts to look like Ford pickup trucks, shootings would never happen.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The list will be available only to law enforcement, and registrants will remain on it for five years, not life, but they must update their addresses with state authorities, just like sex offenders.

    Right. Sort of like the New York gun permit registry remained nice and secure until the Journal News published it.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    After I graduate from college I'm never going north of the Mason-Dixon line again.

  • Almanian!||

    lulz - I'm thinking Montana, Wyoming, SD or ND would gladly have you. Northeast? Yeah, I'm a yank, and even I won't go there...

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    See below, and I also might add that I too, am a Yank. Most people at school (in the north) are surprised to hear I live in the south.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And yet, NH and VT have some of the least-restrictive gun laws in the country.

  • Almanian!||

    Weird, innit?

  • Restoras||

    Both of those states also do not contatin major urban centers that are fucking things up for the rural portion of the state.

  • ||

    Hey, look, man, don't deny people their collectivist REGION WAR. They seem to like it a whole lot.

  • Zeb||

    I try to stay out of it, but being lumped in with MA and CT and RI really hurts sometimes.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    It's relevant to this discussion that I also hate snow.

  • Zeb||

    Monster.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's relevant to this discussion that I also hate snow.

    Fair dinkum.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    I see IFH has been a bad influence on you, Heroic.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, have you ever had an Aussie shelia go down on you after you doused your dick in Fosters?

    You'd understand.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Shelia. Australian for sheep.

  • Jordan||

    Has anyone heard from IFH recently? She and Groovus have disappeared...

  • LTC(ret) John||

    ifh made an appearance or two last week. The good Doc has vanished long before that (tho' sloopy has heard from him privately).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    PA is decent also, though that's changing as Philly is getting more and more powerful in the state due to the rest of it hemorrhaging population.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Remember folks, it's ok for these folks to have guns, including fully-automatic AK-47s, because the future belongs to them.

  • Almanian!||

    Truly, they are winning he future. #WINNING

  • Tim||

    "Search warrants from the second-worst school shooting in American history revealed that the home Lanza shared with his mother in Newtown, Conn., was a veritable arsenal: Authorities found at least nine knives, three Samurai swords, two rifles, 1,600 rounds of ammunition and a 7-foot, wood-handled pole with a blade on one side and a spear on the other."

    http://openchannel.nbcnews.com.....ain=usnews

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I've been hearing this "arsenal" crap over and over the past few weeks.

    Last night on the news they mentioned a guy who was threatening people with a tractor in some WPa shithole, and the cops found an "arsenal" at his home: six rifles and two handguns. The local news anchors don't have much contact with the gun owning community, do they.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But...but...they found nine knives!!! One of them could have been, like, a Leatherman or something!

  • ||

    The closet under my basement stairs in my old CT condo had over 20 guns in it and hundreds of rounds of ammo. Only one knife, though.

  • Tim||

    Did you have a seven foot pole with a spear on one side and a blade on the other?

  • ||

    Yeah, it's in my pants.

  • Bam!||

    I'm pretty sure my kitchen has more than nine knives.

  • T||

    I know mine does, since I have a full knife block and another full set in a knife case I use for tailagting and barbecue. I wonder how the media would describe my 14" butcher knife?

  • Loki||

    I wonder how the media would describe my 14" butcher knife?

    An assault knife.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "short sword".

  • WTF||

    I have more knives, more swords, more guns and more ammo - especially ammo, since I like to go shooting and it's cheaper to buy in bulk.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Ditto.

    Anyone who thinks 2 guns and some pointy things is an "arsenal" is fucking retarded.

  • Restoras||

    Speaking of arsenal, I have to check if my new Remington 700 has arrived at my FFL yet...

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Watch out, Restoras. One more and you've got an arsenal! Expect a visit from the feds, or if you can't be easily arrested, a drone.

    Kidding aside, that's a fantastic gun to have in your collection. What kind of optics are you getting/have for it?

  • Restoras||

    Well, that's a good question. Do you have a recommendation? I am planning to get comfortable with the iron sights (it's a BDL in .30-06) before getting optics, and realistically I'll need something for no more than 50 yards to 100 yards or so.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    For those short distances, you don't need a whole lot of power. At 50 - 100 yards, I can hit bowling pins with my AR all day with just the reflex scope.

    What you are going to be shooting at really matters in selecting a scope. No matter what type, though. Quality matters. I have a ridiculously cheap scope on my 700 (no iron sights and I blew all my money on the gun), It was decent for shorter range, but the eye relief was so bad, I kept getting bruises above my eye. My buddy has a scope on his 700 that cost more than 2 of the guns combined, but it's comfortable to look through and I can get good groups at over 200 yds.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Here's a pretty decent explanation of what to look for in good optics.

    http://www.opticsplanet.com/ho.....scope.html

  • Restoras||

    Awesome, thanks!

  • Generic Stranger||

    Buying an '06 and then only shooting it at 100 yards is like buying a Ferrari and then never taking it to the track.

  • Restoras||

    So, what should I have? Sounds like you are advocating a soft-cap on my choice of firearms. I hope not.

  • Generic Stranger||

    No, just meant you shouldn't limit your shooting to 100 yards, if possible. Kind of a waste of the gun's potential.

  • Zeb||

    I think I have nine knives in my car.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Fuck, I have two knives on me right now. One Swiss Army, and one punch knife...and I'm currently on a college campus!

    OH MY GOD, SOMEONE PLEASE STOP ME!!!!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I hope you're posting from your cell phone, dude. I don't trust the fucksticks at my uni not to monitor my Net activity.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Tor on a thumb drive.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's also worth noting that, since 2010, NH has had no laws restricting bladed weapons of any sort.

  • Zeb||

    And amazingly, no spates of switchblade stabbings or rapier robberies have occurred.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Nice, sharp alliteration.

  • Tejicano||

    I believe that is his forte.

  • ||

    When I heard the "over a thousand rounds of ammo" I was like yeah, I've got that in my pantry, in large part because it's not possible right now to buy less than a thousand rounds at a time, you dumb fucks.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Back when 22LR was available at Walmart, I'd quite often have 1,650 rounds sitting in the baby compartment on top of my shopping cart while puzzling over whether to get the chocolate ice cream or the Moose Tracks. Of course it was inside a plastic bag already so the soccer moms cruising by had no idea.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I wouldn't comply with any of this shit. Fuck those assholes.

  • Loki||

    It's a true dog's breakfast that could satisfy only those who value restrictions on freedom for their own sake,

    You just described the progressive mindset in a nutshell.

    ...or else admire train-wrecky lawmaking as an execise in performance art.

    That's pretty much its only redeeming quality. The lulz.

  • Jon Lester||

    And of course, deficiencies in CT family law will not be addressed.

  • Restoras||

    Only five innings yesterday? Were you too distracted by the thought of posting here?

  • OldMexican||

    One of the unwritten rules of politics is that any legislation labeled "bipartisan" is sure to be especially poorly thought out and intrusive.


    One of the unwritten rules of lawmaking is that extraordinary events make bad legislation. This is one of those instances that proves the rule.

  • CE||

    You don't need a government permission slip to exercise your basic human rights.

  • AlgerHiss||

    Any sheriff or cop got the moral courage to stand up and say they won't enforce this garbage?

    I didn't think so.

    Take those flags you wear on your shoulders off. There's no use telling THAT lie anymore.

  • Alton543||

    just before I looked at the draft that said $4218, I did not believe ...that...my best friend could realy earning money part-time on their laptop.. there neighbour haz done this less than 1 year and at present repaid the dept on there villa and bought Dodge. we looked here, http://www.wow92.com

  • XM||

    Personally, I'm not that bothered by ammunition limits. Cops won't likely enforce it, and if you fended off would be murderers with modded guns, the prosecutors won't make a big stink about it - in most places.

    What's disturbing is that Americans are blind to the fact that (typical) gun violence here is a demographics issue. Even Juan Williams acknowledged it. America is burdened with an IMMENSE underclass mired in poverty, and a small segment of is prone to violence. Bans on assault weapons won't do a THING to stop blacks and Latinos from killing each other.

    As for mass shootings, there's nothing the government can do for crappy parents. Americans who resent "Tiger moms" in China should see what their permissive parenting has resulted in. Worst case scenario - Adam Lanza. My mom would have smashed the PS3 with a bat if I played that much video games.

    This is a strange place, the more I think about. Koreans and Japanese work 10-11 hours a day and are into all sorts of fantasy role playing games and scenarios. People have literally died playing Starcraft-esque games for 20 straight hours. But they don't resort to violence. Lanza was college dropout facing no pressure from anyone.

  • JeremyR||

    But actually, Asians are actually over represented in mass shootings, there have been a number of them while there really aren't that many in the US.

    Virginia Tech for instance. And there was that guy that shot a bunch of hunters up North.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    the legislation is being sent directly to a vote through an emergency procedure that allows for no stops on the way

    Yes, we certainly can't allow anybody to read the bill first, let alone think about the consequences. That would be extremist and crazy. And mean-spirited!

  • ||

    We have to pass it so we can find out what's in it!

  • Numeromancer||

    Am I the first to think that this looks like a screen-shot from The Corbomite Maneuver?

  • Bender Bending Rodriguez||

    No, you are not.

  • Tejicano||

    Anybody who believes that the left has any interest in some limited compromise on gun bans is deluded and not worth the time it takes to discuss the issue. They use the word “compromise” but never say one word about what they will give up or what gun owners will get out of the deal. That is not what “compromise” means.

    They also use the word “reasonable” in a way that is similarly detached from anything related to the meaning of that word. If you find a thousand people who engage in some specific activity in which two of those people break the law while doing that activity what is reasonable about passing a law which could only be expected to affect the behavior of the 998 who don’t break the law? What is reasonable - or even sane – to expect that that kind of law would even someday down the line begin to change the situation?

    I’ve been watching this fight since the 1970’s and believe that the tide is slowly turning in our favor. We are lucky to be living in the age of the internet which is slowly getting the light of truth to people across the board. I believe that if we stick to our guns (pun value optional) eventually too few people will continue to believe the bullshit being spread by the gun ban crowd to the point that it will no longer have any political clout.

  • mayajan67||

    my neighbor's mother makes $82/hour on the computer. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her pay was $19382 just working on the computer for a few hours. Here's the site to read more
    HTTP://BIG76.COM

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement