I attended the Public Hearing held by the Connecticut
Committee on Public Safety on March 20. The experience was
at once an enlightening and disheartening one, and shed a good light on the
machinations behind the motivation, proposal, consideration and passage of
the laws by which we are governed. My hope was that the hearing would
be a relatively impartial consideration of testimony given by Connecticut
Citizens and their representatives. Sadly, this was not entirely the
case.
The primary focus of this hearing was on Raised Bill No. S.B. 1405 An Act
Concerning Firearms Safety. From the very start, it was obvious that
this bill was neither concerned with nor intended to improve firearm safety
in Connecticut, but is in fact an aggressive expansion of the "Assault
Weapons" Ban that passed by a narrow margin in 1993.
Senator Jepsen and Atty General Blumenthal both testified (not under oath,
as this was a relatively informal hearing - luckily for them) that the
proposed bill was not an intent to expand the ban. They testified that
theirs is simply an attempt to make technical corrections to the original
bill in order to close "loopholes" that allow "copycat"
versions of banned weapons to be purchased in Connecticut.
In point of fact, whether intentionally or not, Sen. Jepsen seriously
misrepresented the effect of the proposed bill by asserting that it is
intended to address "copycat" products that have arisen in "mocking" (his word) defiance of the original law. He
conveniently failed to note (or understand, perhaps), that the firearm
designs to which he disparagingly referred had been created - not to mock a
seriously flawed law - but so as to comply with that law. He
disingenuously tried to turn the act of compliance into a brazen attempt to
circumvent. Jepsen also failed to note that many of the models listed in the
bill were either original designs or in manufacture before the 1993 law went
into effect.
Some examples are the Iver Johnson M1 Carbine (which
can be seen in movies produced in the 1950's), Benelli M1 and M3 Shotguns,
Springfield Armory M1A (the civilian version of the M-14, which went into
production in the early 1950's) and SAR-8, etc. He did not comment on
why these products, many of which were available before 1993, were not
listed in the original version of the bill. The reason that they did
not appear at that time, of course, was that they did not fit the bill's
original definition of the term "assault weapon". Finally he
demonstrated a visible outrage at the obviously tongue-in-cheek model
designations given to these new models such as "PCR" for
"Politically Correct Rifle". Politicking is indeed an art
form.
Jepsen and Blumenthal also testified, as did the Commissioner of the
Department of Public Safety, that there existed no evidence - statistical or
otherwise - that suggested either a need to further regulate the ownership
of semiautomatic and .50 caliber rifles, or to change in the existing,
controversial law.
Rep. San Angelo turned out to be the most vocal proponent for Reason on the
Committee. He was the only one with the temerity to request that the
Commissioner, Senator or Atty General provide any justification for the
existing ban and/or a change in the law to include a new list - and class -
of currently legal weapons. His insistent queries for any shred of
statistical or otherwise tangible evidence justifying a change in the law
were met by confused,
weasel-worded, stuttering assurances amounting to hearsay, that someone,
somewhere had observed a reduction in crime that may have been attributable
to the 1993 ban. In short, the proponents of S.B. 1405 testified that
there was not the slightest bit of tangible, credible evidence that (a) a
change was needed due to proliferation of "copycat" weapons or
that (b) the language of the changed bill would improve public safety in any
way whatsoever.
Numerous individuals gave testimony describing the obvious problems with the
proposed bill and the utter failure of "gun control" in general as
a solution to crime. Many were met with argumentative - and at some
points, accusatory - comments and statements made by the Chairman of the
Committee, Sen. Penn, who actively lobbied for passage of the 1993 law and
who demonstrated himself to be a strong proponent of S.B. 1405. While
Penn's motives may have honestly been grounded, as he claimed, in the
removal of weapons from the violent Bridgeport streets in 1993, it is
obvious today that his motives are very different. He did
not seem interested in any debate of substance, but continuously derailed
the discussion with irrelevant thesis, nitpicking over details and an
apparent desire to perpetuate the notion that any "gun control" is
acceptable, regardless of any irrational underpinnings. In essence, he
aggressively defended "copycat" legislation originally
intended to address issues in culturally different jurisdictions (the
language of the proposed bill was essentially plagiarized from sources in
other States' legislation), while vilifying "copycat" weapons that
were actually redesigned with the intent to comply with flawed and useless
laws.
The facts, as found in the bill itself, are as follows.
S.B. 1405, contrary to its disingenuous title, will do nothing to improve
firearm safety or public safety in Connecticut.
Contrary to the impression exhibited by the "Million Moms"
representatives and others of the public who seem to support it, exactly no
firearms of any kind will be removed from circulation by the passage of this
expanded version of the 1993 "Assault Weapons" Ban. This was
true in 1993 and it is true today. Existing owners are free to retain
their firearms provided that they are given permission to do so by the
State, in the form of a "certificate of possession".
Essentially, any law-abiding person who wished to conform to this law would
effectively be required to register with the State as an "assault
weapon" owner. No provision has been made in the bill to ascertain the
number or location of firearms that should be registered. No provision has
been made to ensure or enforce compliance with this law by Connecticut
firearm owners. No details are included as to the exact criteria for
approving or denying permission to retain a banned firearm. And no provision
is made to prevent importation into the State from outside sources.
Again, no
firearms are actually removed from "the streets" by this
bill, although that is a common misperception that its proponents have
been happy to passively promulgate.
The proposed bill requires no restriction - not even a temporary moratorium
- on the manufacture of those firearms on the banned list. Nor does it
suggest to manufacturers that they cease producing weapons with the
"offensive" accoutrements listed as criteria for "assault
weapon" status. Manufacturers are free to continue building and
selling these weapons, provided that they are sold only to Official State
and Federal consumers - or consumers in other States. Yes,
manufacturers are free to continue to build these weapons in Connecticut -
they are simply required to export these "dangerous" products and
make them the problem of some other jurisdiction.
Assurances by Sen. Jepsen and Atty General Blumenthal notwithstanding, this
bill is, in fact, an aggressive expansion of the existing "Assault
Weapons" Ban.
The original 1993 bill contained the following language, defining those
weapons - termed "assault weapons" - to be banned:
"Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic,
semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the
following specified semiautomatic firearms: ." [emphasis added]
This statement was followed by a list of specific weapons, most of which
have a pistol grip or other quasi-military accoutrements which are often
pointed to by "gun control" proponents as those which somehow make
the firearm "more dangerous", but which in reality have no effect
whatsoever on the firearm's function.
The expanded ban contains this additional language:
"A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A pistol grip that
protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (B) a thumbhole
stock; (C) a folding or telescoping stock; (D) a grenade launcher or flare
launcher; (E) a flash suppressor; or (F) a forward pistol grip;"
[emphasis added]
This redefinition basically says, "we really intended to ban ALL
semiautomatic weapons back in 1993, but didn't feel the political climate
would support it (good guess - the original bill passed by something like
one vote). Now that we have a law in place, it's a simple matter to
change a few words and get what we were looking for all along."
Perhaps now it is a bit more obvious why "gun control" critics are
so adamantly opposed to this type of legislation - it becomes a 'living
organism' that changes with conventional wisdom (as opposed to common sense)
regardless of how it affects the law-abiding members of society.
Essentially, this new definition equates to just about all semiautomatic
rifles currently manufactured, as virtually all of them accept a detachable
magazine and have some sort of flash suppressor or extended grip.
Further definition for pistols and shotguns is followed by a new, expanded
list of products that were not included in the 1993 law, even though many of
those listed existed at that time.
Note that this is not a clarification, but an entirely new definition of the
term "assault weapon". The obvious intent of this new
definition, and the accompanying expanded product list, is not to deal with
"copycat" products, but simply to expand coverage to include more
of the products already legally owned by thousands of Connecticut residents.
"Gun control" critics have long maintained that the goal of most
gun-hating politicians is the incremental regulation (and history shows,
ultimate confiscation) of all firearms. This bill started with a
limited definition of "assault weapon" which has now been expanded
to include an entire class of weapons not originally considered to be in
that category. This is a perfect example of incremental regulation.
S.B. 1405 will create more new criminals than it can ever
remove from our midst.
There will undoubtedly be some poor individual out there with an old M1
Carbine in a basement footlocker on the day this law is passed. There
will undoubtedly also be those who are so insulted and incensed by the
implications of "begging permission" to keep property they have
legally owned for years, that they refuse on point of principle to comply
with what they know to be a flawed law. And of course, there will be
others who simply have no respect for law in any form. For any number
of reasons, there are bound to be those who do not comply with this law, if
passed. These people will be guilty of a Class D Felony, and become
criminals, if they fail to apply for permission to keep their firearms.
The sole reason for their transition to criminal status will be the
misguided passage (if
successful) of this bill into law.
At the same time, this bill contains nothing that will reduce the ready
access criminals have to all manner of firearms - semiautomatic or
automatic. Anyone with the wherewithal to bribe a military
quartermaster (easily done at the rate of pay they presently earn) can
obtain military-grade automatic weapons with a phone call or two. This bill
contains nothing, such as support for Rep. San Angelo's gun trafficking task
force for instance, that would
improve law enforcement's ability to catch, prosecute and incarcerate such
people, or the violent offenders who misuse firearms in the commission of a
crime. Those criminals, who wish to flaunt the law as criminals have
been known to do from time to time, will be free, as always, to retain any
weapons they may have or can steal, without concern for any new actions
imposed or suggested by this bill.
S.B. 1405 is a non-solution to a non-problem.
As pointed out by its authors and supporters, there is no evidence that
semiautomatic weapons, in general, have become a public safety problem, or
that new legislation is needed to regulate their ownership. Nor has
any tangible reason been given to divert valuable public funds to the
debate, vote, enactment (if passed) and enforcement of this law. Other than
a "career builder" political move for certain politicians, the sum
total effect of this bill - as with most "gun control" legislation
- is to place an undue burden
on the law-abiding while doing nothing to reduce violent crime.
S.B. 1405 discriminates against the Disabled, "have-nots" and our
youth.
Gun-hating legislators typically list certain cosmetic features as
characterizing an "assault weapon", and seek to ban their use
based on the existence of these features. Foremost among these are the
folding stock, thumbhole or pistol grip, and forward grip. These
features do absolutely nothing to change the function of the weapon, but
might mean the difference between being defenseless and being armed for
persons with disabilities that prevent the "normal" grip
configuration afforded those of use with two arms, ten
fingers and working shoulder joints. Likewise, a limitation on the
number of rounds available in a magazine diminishes the self-defense
capability of those with physical disabilities, for whom reloading may be
difficult.
Also discriminated against are those who, as of the deadlines set forth in
this bill, do not then own one of the firearms deemed "assault
weapons" by this bill. While those in possession of these
products at that time are free to retain their firearms once they have
begged for and received permission from the State, other Connecticut
residents will be forever prevented from owning any of them. This is
inconsistent at best, discriminatory at worst.
Finally, this law will forever discriminate against future generations of
young marksmen, preventing them from entering the same rifle competitions
enjoyed by their predecessors, many of which have in the past often led to
distinguished careers in the military, local accolades and recognition, and
improved self-esteem. Olympic pistol competitors will no longer be
afforded the opportunity to
practice within the State, as the typical configuration for the pistol they
use includes a thumbhole in the grip and, I believe, a "Luger-style",
detachable magazine forward of the trigger. The Civilian Marksmanship
Program, approved by the Federal Government, will essentially be a thing of
the past in Connecticut, and one more program aimed at teaching firearm
safety and proficiency - one more program aimed at training our youth in
responsibility, team spirit, fair play and excellence - will have been
eliminated.
Finally, S.B. 1405 is a direct violation of the U. S. Constitution's Second
Amendment and Sec. 15 of the Connecticut State Constitution.
There's a popular remark among gun owners that "the Second Amendment
ain't about duck-huntin'". While this statement may seem trite
and even simple-minded to those who have never fired a rifle, never defended
their country in battle, or never read the words of the statesmen who
founded our country, it is the sentiment that lay at the heart of the
problem with "gun control". Anyone with an hour or so to
spare, and who can procure a copy of the U.S. Constitution and the
Federalist Papers can easily discover the intent
behind the debate and wording of the Second Amendment. They will
discover that it was - and remains - a guarantee that the people of the
United States should never be placed at the mercy of a corrupt government
for lack of ability to defend themselves by force of arms.
We see corrupt governments and downtrodden populations in other countries,
but we assure each other and ourselves that such things can never happen
here. The truth is that they can never happen here as long as the
people themselves retain the ability to physically remove those who would
oppress them beyond their ability to suffer oppression.
S.B. 1405 - and all "gun control" - is an exercise in dismantling
this guarantee. Obviously, in order to retain the capability of
self-defense from a corrupt and well-armed government, the Colonists of 1776
needed to retain their muskets and other weapons. As such, the British
sought to ban and relinquish the Colonists of these weapons. History
shows that the War for American Independence began in response to an
attempted "assault weapons" confiscation by the British
government.
Without their "assault weapons", the Colonists could not have
withstood the onslaught of the Redcoats, and the United States would likely
still comprise a British Colony or protectorate. Is it any wonder, as
we see President Clinton and his ilk mirror the same corruption and
disregard for the law found in the actions of King George and the British
Parliament of 1775, that the ownership of effective firearms has come under
such strong attack by government
actors? Since no statistics support the view that these firearms are
used in the majority of violent crime, there can really be only one other
motivation for such heavy regulation of automatic and semiautomatic weapons.
Whether or not that is the true motivation of today's politicians is a
subject of constant heated emotional debate.
Nevertheless, it is the only remaining motivation. Either they really
are inept or oblivious to the facts demonstrating the failure of "gun
control" as a solution to crime, or politicians really are motivated to
disarm the general public, to the extent that we can no longer defend
ourselves against a well-armed military or paramilitary
force.
This line of reasoning, unfortunately, is always instantly branded as
heretical, paranoid conspiracy theory. More is the pity for this tradition,
since further discussion inevitably degenerates to emotional epithet and
hyperbole, and the actual possibilities are never really reasoned through as
a result - even if only to dispel them as impossibilities.
Furthermore, questions regarding the government's motives have recently led
to backlash in the form of a rash of "scholarly" constitutional
revisionism.
These efforts are aimed at redefining the meaning of the
word "people" in the Second Amendment so as to claim that the
'right' is intended to mean a right of the State, not of the people, themselves. This is in spite of the fact that the term
"people" means just that in all of the other Amendments and that
the motion of 'right' is not attributed to a State anywhere else in the
Constitution. People have rights. States and the Federal Government
have (supposedly limited) powers. Not much ambiguity there - and the
revisionists know this. Yet they continue to obfuscate the Second
Amendment's meaning in an effort to convince those unfamiliar with the
details of history that it there is no 'individual' right to keep and bear
arms. This is another of the many ways the Founders' original intent
is being dismantled. Again, the only apparent motivation is to render
the general public weaponless - and defenseless.
