CCDL: "Enforce all Current Gun Laws"

CCDL's Mission Statement says in part:

"We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms"

But then in item 5 of their most recent Call to Action, CCDL encourages support to "Enforce the current laws."

So which is it?

Does CCDL see itself solely as a defensive organization against NEW gun control, believing the state's current draconian gun control is acceptable regardless of anybody's rights?

I don't read such things a literally ... clearly our AWB is highly questionable (the Benjamin case that said OK on it was pre-Heller and the case law supporting the opinion has been struck down).

I think its a statement to "be nice". Not "we approve" of all the stupid gun laws in CT...

But maybe others from the organizational hierarchy will chime in and clarify.

If that is the case, allow me to present an analogy that reveals the absurdity and potential evil of such a motivation:

"Enforce all current anti-Jewish laws. (We're just trying to be nice, not that we really approve)"

Ernst and Hildegard Rohm
Berlin, 1943

Wow, that's quite the stretch.

I'm pretty sure there were 20 or more laws broken that day before he even go to the wholesale slaughter of kids. Shooting your sleeping mother 4 times in the face is frowned upon by legal jurisprudence, theft of firearms, unauthorized carry of such in a car by a non permitted person, etc etc.. there's not a law on the books that would have prevented what happened. It's not about the tool it's the person behind it.

That being said, there are plenty of laws on the books that if enforced would make a difference overall. Even Gun Grabber DeStefano said the majority of gun crime in his fair city was done by hood rats with hand guns. Well up in Hartford there was a state funded violent offender task force that went into these 'hoods and ripped this evil out by the roots, locked the pricks up and removed the guns from circulation. So far so good, and the gun crime DID go down! but the lily-livered types in Hartford felt sorry for them and let them go from prison and also removed funding from the task force so now Hartford is the same infested dung pile it always was. So if they aren't willing to go for the "low hanging fruit" that actually will make a difference, why all these draconian laws? Because in politics you don't have to do something good you just have to look like you are.

the ccdl does not want anymore laws made to restrict gun rights. fact.
the ccdl thinks enforcing current laws is a better alternative to new laws, more laws. fact.
the ccdl does not want many or most of the current gun laws we have on the books here in ct. fact
but we do have laws, and the ccdl fights for all legal firearms uses and practices. whats legal right now, and whats illegal, is not ideal. but its what we have. which is why the ccdl fights so hard against more laws, and why they try to get people in our capitol to put forth bills that would get back some of our rights, using the same incremental push the left uses against us.

if you think the ccdl is phony, or not thinking correctly, get your butt off a forum, and send an email to one of their board members. then post on this forum that you asked a question and are awaiting a reply. and then post their reply. or ignore them. some people like the nra, some hate them. same with the goa. everyone has different needs/wants. but to suggest that ccdl is anything less than for full constitutional carry and gun rights is absurd.

bouncer

Folks should be taking a look at our AWB .. its unconstitutional ...

The court cases that affirmed this were pre-heller and the decisions that the court relied upon at the CT supreme court were struck down in heller.

The guns banned in our AWB are clearly covered under the 2nd amendment. People may not like it, but that's the way it is.

No one should ever use the term "ALL" ... and the "call to action" does not say ALL...

it says:

5) Express that we do not need additional gun laws. Enforce the current laws and lengthen prison sentences for criminals that conduct violent acts.

Hardly an endorsement that the group supports laws that are on the books; just a note to tell legislators that we have enough laws ... plus to lengthen prison sentences (which I see as being too broad a statement without knowing what exactly is considered a "violent act" -- I'm sure the democrats would see anything gun related to be a "violent act") .

1.

davidmcbeth said:

Folks should be taking a look at our AWB .. its unconstitutional ...
The guns banned in our AWB are clearly covered under the 2nd amendment.)


2. 5) (CCDL says)..."Enforce the current laws" Hardly an endorsement that the group supports laws that are on the books; .

Click to expand...

1. Absolutely!! In fact the 1939 SCOTUS Miller vs. US decision decided against Miller (who was then dead and didn't show up) precisely because there was no one there to represent him and inform the justices that short barreled shot guns DID have a military purpose (trench guns in WWI). The language of the judges in the decision affirmed that military purpose weapons is EXACTLY what the 2A protects.



2. I disagree. Saying to enforce current laws DOES indicate support for them.

Riverdance said:

1.


2. I disagree. Saying to enforce current laws DOES indicate support for them.

Click to expand...

But not ALL laws .... its just a generalization ... would you agree?

davidmcbeth said:

But not ALL laws .... its just a generalization ... would you agree?

Click to expand...

They are not talking about tax laws.

When CCDL says "we do not need additional gun laws. Enforce the current laws...." it seems plain they are embracing and supporting Connecticut's current gun laws. Even if it can be construed as some kind of generalization, it is a bad one.

The anti-rights lobby supports them too.

Reply from CCDL President

Riverdance/Dennis,

Last year CCDL was a prime mover of HB5245 to get it voted unanimously through the house. We also tackled ordinances that prohibited concealed carry in two fairly large cities here, as well as stopping other ordinances throughout the state.

Last year we wrote an entire proposal complete with statistical breakdowns on shall issue states, which included a FOIA report of all pistol permit holders in CT, including out of state permit holders. Those out of state applicants have an easier time obtaining their permits than many of our own residents. We had put this forth, as a manifest to support "Shall Issue" changes in CT. Sadly it did not go anywhere. This would have been a great advance, and much time and effort was put into it.

This year I/We have publicly stated in many interviews that we need legislation that undoes the gun free zones in our schools and in other places. What little legislation that has been put forth on that issue, we certainly support. When CCDL says "enforce the laws on the books". That doesn't mean we are not working to undo certain unjust laws to improve things for people here.

Right now, in CT, we have over 100 gun bills, most of which are not in our favor. It is very difficult keeping up the fight on these bills, and trying to find legislalators that are sympathetic to making things better for gun owners. Especially in an already anti-gun state coupled with a very recent mass murder of young children.

Dennis your claims are unfounded, if you are a logical person, you would have this thread deleted. I am not expecting you to, but we are not in favor of the majority of the laws on the books. It is a fact that the authorities here do not enforce the existing laws to the letter, but they do continually seek to add new ones.

Yesterday, with pressure from our organization, we were able to get the House Minority leader to pull out of the anti-gun rally at the capitol. This past week we also forced the legislature to hold hearings that will be up and coming on e-cert bills that would have bypassed this whole public process. This is not Virginia, we have had a very anti-gun legislature up here even before Sandy Hook, so often we have to play defense. Certainly more regularly than Virginia folks.


All the best
Scott Wilson
CCDL, Inc,.

Scott -

I do not dispute the good work CCDL does, and admit to not being familiar with all your labors and accomplishments. We had additional challenges here in Virginia this year because of the Sandy Hook murders, so I can fully appreciate (and have heard second-hand of) the difficulties you folks have gone through both professionally and personally there at "ground zero" because of it. My hopes and prayers are with you all individually and organizationally.

That said, my "claim" (that CCDL's encouragement of support for enforcing current laws is wrongheaded), is not "unfounded." How can you say "enforce current laws" and then counter that in your post above by saying "we are not in favor of the majority of the laws on the books"? The examples you cite of CCDL's exertions prove that you rightfully DON'T support current tyranny, so I view the former proclamation as merely a public relations gaffe. If I'm hitting a nerve, perhaps it merits your board applying additional scrutiny to or even re-considering said proclamation.

While none of us will (or should) agree with each other on everything (we liken leadership of rights activists to "herding cats"), I am greatly appreciative of your motivation, conviction and efforts. I have a personal vested interest in what happens in Connecticut, and am compelled to surface this concern solely in the desire to advance our common interest. I mean nothing personal or belligerent by it (you ought to witness one of OUR contentious pre-vote discussions) - but a lively and thought-provoking vetting is invaluable.

I've said my piece on this and will refrain from continuing with it on this public forum.

For whatever consideration you might deem them worthy of, I'll venture to voice future "discomforts" directly. I know I still have Lenny's email around somewhere, and can probably find yours in the public domain when or if I'm next "aroused".

Respectfully,

Dennis

Riverdance said:

r if I'm next "aroused".

Respectfully,

Dennis

Click to expand...

Please no pics !!