New Page 1

FYI-Not for Publication: This is a message sent to the Coalition of CT Sportsmen e-mail list. I would expect you will receive some Letters to the Editor. It's also provided to give you a few ideas on research. I would also suggest you read the Assault Weapon Archives http://www.calnra.org/ (not the reader comment, but the news articles/data) to see the logical extension and chaos involved in possible passage of this bill. For general updates of concern to the firearms community: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/#nl

The Department of Justice has a research brief "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96." http://ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/173405.txt It is mealy -mouthed with many "mays" which tends to indicate no real effect [written during the Clinton Administration- in support of the Clinton '94 AW bill??], but may prove interesting and provide you more data.

Connecticut was in the vanguard of the gun-control movement when, in 1993, lawmakers banned semiautomatic, military-style assault weapons that have no justifiable sporting purpose. [Demonstrated ignorance of firearms & use] The law has stood the test of time and has served as a national model. [The national "model" is the CA law. CT proponents only copy]

A bill that would have closed the loophole [Legislators voting for the '93 bill knew there were clones and other firearms that met their cosmetic criteria - including many that were not clones] by adding the assault weapon clones to the list and would have restricted the use of .50-caliber single-shot and semiautomatic rifles as well as armor-piercing ammunition died in the legislature's Public Safety Committee recently. Democratic leaders have promised to resurrect the measure.

A chief critic of the proposal - Rep. Ronald San Angelo, R-Naugatuck - said its supporters couldn't show "one shred of evidence that the past bill did any good," and he suggested that the latest version "solves a problem that doesn't exist." [ Proponents of bills MUST be able to back-up their proposals with fact: AG Blumenthal and Sen. Jepsen in their testimony had NO evidence this bill was needed! The Commissioner of Public Safety said "Assault Weapons" were NOT a problem. The Courant counters it own claims in the paragraph below which indicates "clones" or the .50 Cal in the '93 ban are NOT a problem].

Mr. San Angelo is wrong on both counts. Since enactment of the ban eight years ago, not a single person has been killed by a person using an assault weapon and fewer of the guns have been turning up in crimes, according to police.

Moreover, if the ban had been in effect two years prior, state Trooper Russell Bagshaw would not have died in the line of duty. Mr. Bagshaw was murdered by a man who broke into a gun shop, stole a semiautomatic weapon and fired 17 rounds, only one of which struck the 28-year-old trooper. But that one bullet, which entered the left side of his chest, was enough. [Antiquated emotion. The perp could just as easily used a hunting caliber bullet to penetrate directly the "bullet proof" vest. The gun used is on the original ban list. Where is the relevance?]

"Had that gun been banned, it wouldn't have been in the store. And if it were not for the gun being able to fire 17 rounds, Trooper Bagshaw would be alive today," said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven. [Evidently Rep. Lawlor hasn't read about the repeated incidence of the technique of reloading prevalent in nearly all the recent school shootings. If high capacity magazines are "good" for protection of police, why should not the same apply to citizen self-protection?]

These weapons have no legitimate purpose other than to kill or maim. [Semi-automatics are used in National Matches, for hunting, general target shooting, self-defense use, and collecting. Some are sold to gunowners by the federal government. In general the bullets are smaller caliber than hunting firearms, therefore LESS ability to kill or maim. The statement is pure anti-gun propaganda intended to emotionally influence those that know little of firearms] They have protruding pistol grips so they don't have to be aimed from the shoulder [More ignorance. The editor obviously hasn't seen John Wayne and other westerns movie actors shooting from the hip with lever actions/pump shotguns or WWII/Korea infantry assaults (pre-"protruding pistol grips").], can accept detachable magazines with unlimited rounds [ available for well over half a century] and can fire as quickly as the shooter can pull the trigger [the definition of semi-automatic firearms, available for over a century].

The .50-caliber sniper rifles, which the bill also addresses, were used extensively during the Persian Gulf War. Their purpose was to destroy jeeps, tanks and personnel carriers [Sniper Rifles by definition are anti-personnel. It is doubtful a .50 Cal. sniper rifle in a military application would be used to destroy jeeps (for what purpose?) or personnel carriers. and it would definitely NOT destroy a tank] Used in conjunction with armor-piercing ammunition, according to testimony provided by Senate Majority Leader George Jepsen, the sniper rifles can pierce several inches of steel [A Flyer picture put out by the proponents demonstrates this is false], concrete [Doubtful] and bulletproof glass [Like "bullet proof" vests, it depends on the thickness based upon threat assessment. Some "bulletproof glass might be penetrated by standard hunting bullets]. Today, both the guns and the ammunition are readily available on the civilian market. [Available for over half a century with only one reported incidence in crime. They weigh 20-60 lbs, are 4' long, cost $2 -10,000. A rational choice for criminals?]

Under the proposal, the ammunition and the semiautomatic sniper rifles would be outlawed but not the single-shot rifles, which are used in target competition [If one is a threat, are not the others? Both are used in competition]. Owners would, however, have to register [Registration in ALL instances has proven worthless to law enforcement based on cost/benefit. Ask the state police how often they've used the '93 "Assault Weapon" registration system to advantage.] them and their use would be severely limited.

These are sensible measures. No responsible sportsman can persuasively argue that he needs a weapon that can blast a bullet through an armored tank from a distance of 200 yards. [Poor conclusion to an equally poorly researched opinion. The issue is for YOU and others to demonstrate the previous law has worked and a rational, not emotional, basis for extending the law.]