Why does CCDL support HB 6185?

Why would a pro-gun group support HB 6185? My query to my friends at CCDL went unanswered to I'll post it here.

Does the law routinely require everyone who commits "certain crimes" to register with local police, or is it only gun owners who commit those infractions that are to be treated like sex offenders in a special registry?

Why would they support something that especially targets gun owners and treats them worse than the rest of the population under the same circumstances?

Some "pro-gun" people also say they support the variations of project exile (supported by anti-gun organizations, and unfortunately also the NRA, to their everlasting shame). Several years ago, I was published in newspaper debates with the Richmond (Virginia) police chief and the commonwealth attorney on exile. My challenge to them was to explain to a woman who was beaten, mutilated, raped, and left for dead why her attacker shouldn't be punished as harshly since he used a tool other than a gun in the attack. Exile (and Connecticut's HB 6185) assume guns are bad on their face and seek to treat those who would dare carry them differently than anyone else who would commit the same crime without them.

Sometimes "pro-gun" people will bend over so far backwards to prove they're good guys and get political acceptance and access that they sell out principles. I hope CCDL's listed support for HB 6185 is a mistake.

I agree 100%.
The gun lobby bends over and takes a pounding sometimes to appear satisfactory to antis. The people who want laws like this in place are not going to be pleased until we can't have guns anymore. Why give them anything?

I agree as well. I was more than a little surprised to see CCDL supporting such a encroachment on freedoms and rights in CT.

An explanation would be appreciated.

I can't speak for CCDL, but.....

I have a good sized library on gun rights statistics and such. Looking over that data, I can say there is a LOT of recidivism when it comes to violent crime. That recidivism, is what the anti's use against us. They don't differentiate between the "gun crime" and and recidivism and such.

I honestly could say I'd like to see something done to get those individuals that commit gun crime to not be able to further the damage that happens to the pro-gun community.

I'm not saying that this is the methodology to do so per se, but........

I worry about something else that doesn't get mentioned. What if this is the first step to needing a permit to buy ammo?

Jonathan

"Gun Crmime"

KIX said:

I can't speak for CCDL, but.....

I have a good sized library on gun rights statistics and such. Looking over that data, I can say there is a LOT of recidivism when it comes to violent crime. That recidivism, is what the anti's use against us. They don't differentiate between the "gun crime" and and recidivism and such.

I honestly could say I'd like to see something done to get those individuals that commit gun crime to not be able to further the damage that happens to the pro-gun community.

I'm not saying that this is the methodology to do so per se, but........

I worry about something else that doesn't get mentioned. What if this is the first step to needing a permit to buy ammo?

Jonathan

Click to expand...

I really hate that we use the anti's term. You never hear them say "knife crime" or baseball bat crime" statistics, because they only want to hone in on guns to restrict or take away.

I doubt anyone disagrees that tools to deal with violent crime recidivism are necessary, but focusing on the tool the criminal used and having special punishments for one of them (guns) pretends that the gun is the problem instead of the criminal. That sort of thinking (and legislation like HB 6185) just demonizes guns to no good purpose.

We could have special laws to add mandatory time to criminals who wore white socks during hold-ups. The police would proudly report how many white-socked criminals they took off the streets every year, and yes, while they may have gotten some criminals off the street, demonizing white socks was a worthless and irrelevant focus, but might result in Wal-Mart stop selling them as they wouldn't want to be associated with the crime problem.

A robbery is a robbery, a murder is a murder, a rape is a rape, and an assault is an assault. If we think perpetrators of any of those don't get punished enough by our system, I have no problem with harsher mandatory sentences FOR THE CRIME, but demonizing inanimate objects is just a ploy to ultimately take guns away from those of us who don't commit crimes.

crinimals damage gun community

And yes, the anti's do use armed criminals as an argument against us, but we should never let that go unchallenged, let alone support legislation that helps demonize guns because of the criminal.

None of us get into a panic every time somebody has a car accident or breaks traffic laws, thinking "OMG, I have a car and drivers license too, they're going to think I'm like that guy" Part of it of course, is that EVERYBODY drives a car, even the anti's, and it's easier to take away rights (or privileges in this case) of OTHER people. But the point is the same, our insistance should always be that the INDIVIDUAL is held accountable for his actions.

You'll notice that I quoted "gun crime" for that very reason.

socks..... that's just silly, as the socks weren't the tool used to commit the crime. However, if we get a rash of white sock strangulation, then I'm with ya!

I'm open to the discussion, but I've seen nothing to dissuade my earlier statement.

Let's say there is a registry.... it isn't a barrier for us to get a gun, buy ammo..... or even be on the list. If the registry is for the criminal, and not the law abiding citizen, then I have no problem with it.

Like I think we need some sort of registry (could be combined) for shrinks to report those with mental issues that shouldn't be able to purchase a gun. We've had too many crimes with nutballs that shouldn't have had a firearm in the first place.

As long as the registry is for those that don't follow the rules, I still don't see how it affects me.....

I'm just sayin',

Jonathan

Registry

"As long as the registry is for those that don't follow the rules, I still don't see how it affects me..... "

We are all just one law away from being those who don't follow the rules.

But aside from that, the continued public demonizing of guns is what got us where we are now, with background checks instead of buying them off the shelf at hardware stores, where even gun owners are ashamed of their guns and think they need to offer excuses for having them, where gun owners get angry at others who open carry, and where politicians think it perfectly acceptable to throw up more and more infringements and the public buys it, like my fanciful example of Wal-Mart distancing themselves from white socks due to public perception.

The demonization of guns has and will continue to affect us all.

KIX said:

Like I think we need some sort of registry (could be combined) for shrinks to report those with mental issues that shouldn't be able to purchase a gun.
Jonathan

Click to expand...

I don't know about CT specific law but the federal limitations on purchase/possession to prohibit firearm purchase or possession are limited to those adjudicated (AS IN BY A COURT) to sever one from their 2nd amendment rights "to keep and bear arms." To give a physician, therapist, LEO, or anyone else the power to eliminate ones rights to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment WITHOUT a court proceeding is absolutely WRONG.

As far as their therapist or Doctor.... IF they feel the person should not purchase or possess a firearm then they should start the court process and attempt to get the "adjudication". Until then.... they still have a right to keep and possess arms that "shall not be infringed!"

JoeSparky said:

To give a physician, therapist, LEO, or anyone else the power to eliminate ones rights to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment WITHOUT a court proceeding is absolutely WRONG.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. This really reeks of the 'terrorist watch list' where no one knows how you got on it, and no one knows how to get off of it.

Supposedly this measure is supposed to allow transparency into who is a violent felon that uses firearms in crimes. But in reality, we already have that information, felony convictions are a matter of public record. Didn't we already submit to these concessions with the NICS checks?

Does this mean that we will be trying to fill this list with people who did not get convicted? Got pardoned? What?

I fail to see how this list would accomplish anything, but it should be clear to everyone that the list would be abused.

How can we fight for true 'shall issue' and at the same time authorize the state to put people on a secret list so that they may be rejected for a permit? Isn't it possible that the antis are realizing that suitability is not going to stand up in court and this is their new plan to circumvent this loss?

First - way too many assumptions here.

Nobody said anything about a list either being secret or not having court involvement.

Simply put, you can actually do something that accomplishes the task, but is neither secret or involving the court "up front". Informed notification when someone is on the list on the medical side is easy enough. Once informed, they can start the process of getting off a list if they feel they do not belong there (process, of course to be laid out in legislation).

I find the terror watch list example to be "wonky" at best. The Terror watch lists were not only blind, but also allowed anyone (neighbors, ex wives, etc) to put anyone on the list (like many people did with the Ted Kennedy example). As stated above, medical personnel and informed notification is one methodology.

The one step/slipper slope bit I don't buy either. I agree that there are issues in the past, however, we can use slippery slope to ANY legislation we don't agree with and nothing would ever get done (not that it does anyway, but that's a whole 'nother topic).

So...... since we have some disagreement here..... let me ask.....

What would you guys do in order to prevent someone who really shouldn't have a gun from legally purchasing one?

Look at the legislative calendar across the country because one nutter decided to attempt to kill a representative and others at a public meet and greet. The guy clearly shouldn't have had a firearm and look at the damage he's caused to our 2A rights across the country.

Jonathan

screening for gun ownership

"What would you guys do in order to prevent someone who really shouldn't have a gun from legally purchasing one?"

First a question of my own: Would our founding fathers approve of gun prohibitions?

I'm old enough to remember when guns could be bought mail order or off the shelves of stores, no ID, no background checks. The fact that so many today see our current system, with all its prohibitions as normal and necessary* is a reflection of how much we've lost.

*(Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt)

No free man should be barred from the use and possession of arms. If someone has served his time for a mistake, his life is valuable too, and he also has the right to self-defense. I don't care what his criminal history might have been. If he is dangerous, he shouldn't be free in the first place, but that is a problem for the justice system and doesn't justify a general deprivation of rights.

Criminals have and are going to have guns anyway. All the laws and hurdles mostly prevent the good people from having them or at least slow down the process and make it more expensive and cumbersome.

I'd rather see EVERYBODY have guns and have easy access to guns (as we always did up till 43 years ago); our society would be much safer.

Ahhhh, and I'm the one that usually brings up the founding fathers bit.....

The founding fathers actually never commented on mental disease and defect, so it is indeed still an open issue for health debate.

I agree that John Lott is right, more guns indeed equals less crime. However, more guns in the wrong hands of those that aren't mentally or criminally responsible will also increase. On the criminal front, I agree that criminals, will always have guns if they truly want (I did grow up in an urban environment and truly understand the availability issues).

I also agree that when you have served your time, for your crime, then the contract is complete (so to say). However, the other problem is the easy plea bargaining system which again, brings up a whole issue in and of itself.

So, we're just still at a stalemate on this one. I'm all for loosening restrictions and barriers for the overwhelming majority of citizens. I still would like a system that at least creates a hurdle for those that are indeed a danger for society.

Jonathan

On the issue of mental suitability.

I used to be a hard core defender of everyone being able to buy guns, until they forfeit the right. You know, innocent until proven guilty. Recently, a member of my extended family has rapidly become a full blown psychopath. I'm talking CRAZY! Calm and normal one minute, then a raging monster the next. She stews about something until it brings her to your doorstep, screaming. It's driven some of us to changing phone numbers and installing alarm systems. I wish there was some way to stop her from buying guns, but there just isn't until she commits a real crime. Then it's too late. I suppose there is always calling the police and having her "taken away", but what is to stop her from doing the same thing to me? I'm not having my guns taken away for my trouble.

AGust82 said:

On the issue of mental suitability.

I used to be a hard core defender of everyone being able to buy guns, until they forfeit the right. You know, innocent until proven guilty. Recently, a member of my extended family has rapidly become a full blown psychopath. I'm talking CRAZY! Calm and normal one minute, then a raging monster the next. She stews about something until it brings her to your doorstep, screaming. It's driven some of us to changing phone numbers and installing alarm systems. I wish there was some way to stop her from buying guns, but there just isn't until she commits a real crime. Then it's too late. I suppose there is always calling the police and having her "taken away", but what is to stop her from doing the same thing to me? I'm not having my guns taken away for my trouble.

Click to expand...

I seem to remember something in the news recently about a situation such as this one. Nobody did anything about it until it was too late.

CCDL reconsidered HB 6185

and now opposes it.

Kudos to CCDL!!

Riverdance said:

and now opposes it.

Kudos to CCDL!!

Click to expand...

Good.

http://ccdl.us/aboutus/newsletters/49-archived-newsletters/167-update-on-hb-6185

Such integrity in their efforts to restore rights is worthy of a donation.

KIX said:

What would you guys do in order to prevent someone who really shouldn't have a gun from legally purchasing one?

Click to expand...

That is going to depend. Who makes that determination?

If your answer is a judge or jury of their peers, then we already have an answer for that.

If your answer is anything else, then there is no answer. We shouldn't be willing to sacrifice the liberty of good, law abiding people for the feeling of security from people we may not like or agree with.

AGust82 said:

On the issue of mental suitability.

I used to be a hard core defender of everyone being able to buy guns, until they forfeit the right. You know, innocent until proven guilty. Recently, a member of my extended family has rapidly become a full blown psychopath. I'm talking CRAZY! Calm and normal one minute, then a raging monster the next. She stews about something until it brings her to your doorstep, screaming. It's driven some of us to changing phone numbers and installing alarm systems. I wish there was some way to stop her from buying guns, but there just isn't until she commits a real crime. Then it's too late. I suppose there is always calling the police and having her "taken away", but what is to stop her from doing the same thing to me? I'm not having my guns taken away for my trouble.

Click to expand...

Life is like that in a free country. You cant deny a persons rights because of what they MIGHT do. Its not "Too late" after a crime is commited, its the start not the finish.

As far as this registry thing I dont like it. I'v already gotten ensnared by the zero tolerance domestic crime laws here for pleading guilty to disorderly conduct during a spat with a girl 20 years ago. I got that cleared once I learned it made me a violent offender even though there was no violence.
If this will only be used on people who got arrested & convicted its not needed as we already deny those people. Mental health is a tough nut but we MUST err on the side of freedom. If a person is declared nuts by a court fine, but I see this ensnaring people who are simply having issues.
IF we are going to defend RKBA as a right we need to treat it as a right. We dont deny civil rights of innocent people and we cant support things like this and say we are supporting individual rights. We start twisting reality & we are no better than the anti's.