Connecticut enacts its most sweeping gun control law since the Sandy Hook shooting
apnews.com
Connecticut’s most wide-ranging gun control measure since the 2013 law enacted after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting takes effect Sunday, with proponents vowing to pursue more gun legislation despite legal challenges happening across the country.
The new law, signed by Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont in June, bans the open carrying of firearms and prohibits the sale of more than three handguns within 30 days to any one person, with some exceptions for instructors and others.
“We will not take a break and we cannot stop now, and we will continue to pass life-saving laws until we end gun violence in Connecticut. Our lives depend on it,” said Jeremy Stein, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence.
I am a gun guy and I feel like these are fine restrictions. There is no need to open carry, and 3 handguns in a month is strange.
I instantly distrust anyone I see open carrying in public. Hunting or on the farm? Sure, makes sense. In the grocery store...ehhh.
The weekend after it became legal here I saw a guy in cut off jean shorts+beater tank with a 22LR Beretta Neo in a drop leg holster at a local diner. I can only assume he's an elite operator.
The only people who carry in public are cowards. It is that simple.
They are people who are too scared to venture out in public without a gun, and those are the people most likely to use them when unnecessary.
There are surprisingly many people who cc in public, legally or not. Pressed to choose, I would prefer to deal with cc, because open carry is easier for a rando to take it, plus oc in my particular area are larpers and nervous Nelly/ showoff types which are, in my experience more dangerous than the average gang member at the corner store buying a beer and lotto. That said, I’m rural so I’m not sure how that changes in met areas.
I'm fine with concealed carry, especially because it makes it easier to point out that they knew the proper way to handle the situation.
I do think we need a more conservative teaching style about using Force though.
Conservative as in holding back when using firearms.
I’m in full agreement with you, especially in conservatism. I blame Dan Abrams and Hollywood, glorification of excessive force. And I think Larry Flynt called this one.
Generally you're right, but the reason those rights exist is to protect you when you actually need them. Carrying a gun because there's a Lynch mob who think you're the wrong color? Well now the cops in that Lynch mob have what they need to arrest you if not justification for gunning you down right there. This whole business of banning carry started in these very scenarios.
Now that cultural divide is more on economic lines, all these bans have carve outs you can pay your way around. California with the strongest gun bans in the country banned"unsafe handguns", but they created a market by letting you buy ANY handgun you want for typically 2x retail price from a police officer who is exempt and specifically allowed to transfer his exempt guns to you. Cali even lets you own a machine gun if you're willing to spend $5,000-10,000 on the right lawyer to do the paperwork and make the arrangements with your police chief (requires their signature in addition to checking some procedural boxes beforehand).
Before living in California I lived in New York City, the other most restrictive place in the country. Before the supreme Court ruled on bruen, you could carry a gun anywhere with a carry permit it was quite permissive - the only way to get one was to pay a lawyer who made the arrangements. I never got one myself but knew several people who did and it cost them a few thousand in legal fees plus incidentals.
Open carry was pretty much always banned in the United States.
The early cases make a clear distinction between habitual open, carry and purposive open carry.
Habitual open carry, where you wear your gun as a garment just to show it off, was viewed as a sign of a lawless society. It was looked down upon and was illegal in civil places as a breach of peace.
Purposive open carry was legal at common law for people with an obvious need to carry, such as bankers, stagecoach drivers, and police. That's why every state's gun laws read the way they do, for the most part: declaring that carrying is illegal except in specific circumstances, one of which is that the bearer has a permit and the weapon is concealed, another is that the bearer is a police officer, or on their way two and from hunting, or to and from the range, etc.
I don't feel the need to carve out every specific exemption to something I say.
Well you only need one for a mass shooting, and carry bans aren't going to stop you if you're about to fucking murder a bunch of innocent strangers, so what problem is this solving exactly?
It's not. In the view of many, civilian gun ownership is A Problem To Be Solved. Such people do not draw a distinction between law-abiding gun owners who keep their guns secure and threaten nobody, and violent criminals and psychopaths who frequently kill people. Thus, with that view, any law that restricts gun ownership or reduces the number of guns in society is progress.
In reality, this law will do absolutely nothing for public safety. It will make the lives of gun owners harder, while the criminals and psychos will ignore this law just as they do every other law.
The problem of losers with tiny dicks walking around with their gun out scaring people. It's a breach of peace.
How else will people know I'm still a man despite my micro-penis?? I don't think you've thought this through.
Why not just get a big pickup truck and hang truck nuts on it? All the microdicks in my area do that. Nice oversized infotainment rich pickup truck, no mud on her, no tools or supplies in the back. Sorry about the penis size.
I wonder if this is some of the rationale:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235223000181
3 guns in 6 months/ a year is strange. How can you not foresee, within a year time, that you'd need a gun, for any purpose?
Ehh while perhaps not popular amongst this crowd there's also collectors. I've bought and traded more than 3 in that timespan as collectibles/trade options for a sale or some such. Not everything is for nefarious reasons.
Yeah. Maybe something you wanted just popped up on sale. Collectors, target shooters, hunters... Plenty of legitimate reasons.
As i said to someone else, I am talking about those people who won't ho out the door with one.
I like guns, I have guns, I don't carry my guns for no reason.
There is an exception for antiques so you can buy your flintlocks to your heart's content.
There is an exception for antiques so you can buy your flintlocks to your heart's content.
Collector's get a pass, I have guns and use them for hunting.
I'm talking about the dudes that can't walk out the door without a pistol on.
This law is going to be struck down as unconstitutional almost immediately.
If they're going to ban open carry, they need to remove all fees and procedures (prints, etc) for obtaining a concealed carry permit. Otherwise, it only serves to disenfranchise poorer people.
Odd that it could be struck down as unconstitutional since CT banned open carry when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were passed.
Edit: It was actually Rhode Island that did although Connecticut did pass gun control measures in the early 1800s.
The right to bear arms for self defense is in enshrined in the Connecticut Constitution, with no explicit or implied exceptions.
The US Supreme Court ruled last year, that, quote, "Americans have a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public places, arguing that a century-old New York law requiring a 'proper cause' to carry a gun outside of the home is a violation of Second Amendment rights."
That case they ruled on is from when New York tried to do the same thing (setting a precedent).
The law is in outright defiance of the latest Supreme Court interpretation, and the Connecticut Constitution.
Let's not pretend the Supreme Court gives a shit about precedent even if it is recent. Conservatives killed that idea.
Aren't poorer people the ones who do more crime?
Not sure. How many poor people were working in the financial sector when the banks misrepresented the value of mortgage backed securities and sold them to pension funds?
The topic is gun violence.
Fine. If you narrowly define crime as that which involves a gun I am fairly confident you will find that it relates to income levels.
“Crimes” of despair added in maybe, maybe not. Things are criminalized that enough money means not really (epstein’s island), privacy to snort/smoke/inject drugs of choice, solicit sexual services; bribes, embezzlement, tax evasion; and not all crimes are equal, nor should be criminal.
There are multiple orders of magnitude more poor people, and per capita they commit more gun crimes than the rich.
Surely this is due to desperation and lack of opportunity and minimal access to mental health care. But we're not fixing any of that, are we.
Maybe the rich can afford to have their gun crimes committed for them?
But we’re not fixing any of that, are we.
Of course not. Perhaps because it would work?
I'm confused. Don't these restrictions do nothing to stop mass shootings? Open carry is for intimidation. Most mass shooters don't use handguns, they use rifles.
So what are these restrictions for?
Firearm crimes are most commonly committed with handguns. Banning open carry opens up a "See something,, say something" attitude if you see someone with a gun.
I don't know that banning open carry is necessarily a good idea, but banning the sale of more than 3 handguns in 30 days sounds reasonable.
3/month will do good to reduce straw purchases, but will unfortunately hose collectors
There's an exception for antiques, but modern collectors may find it... troublesome.
Maybe testing the waters for some real legislation?
Yeah, it says so much about America that this is “sweeping legislation.” It says so much more about America that this will be challenged and likely overturned.
Feelings. It's just interest balancing garbage.