Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut's toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence.What? Do we now need another "Heller Decision" to ban "lookism"?
"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."
The legislature enacted comprehensive restrictions on ownership of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition early last year in the emotionally charged weeks following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Troubled gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 first-grade students and six women with a now-banned AR-15 Bushmaster assault rifle his mother bought.
The crux of the court decision is this:
In defending the ban, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen argued that handguns and rifles on the state's list of banned assault weapons were designed for killing people and should not be generally owned and used.The salient fact which escapes lawmakers in Connecticut is that all guns are designed "to kill people".
Over the centuries since gunpowder was invented, firearms have been historically used in war. As the technology improved, mankind discovered that guns were eminently practical in hunting wild game, to feed ones family. But even until the 18th Century, guns (in the term of hand-held personal armament, rather than in the sense of "Artillery") were cumbersome, slow to reload, and generally inaccurate ... until long guns with rifle barrels were introduced. And even then, the smooth-barrelled musket was less efficient and accurate than bows, and took much longer to reload.
The advantage of firearms over archery? Guns were more intimidating in war, and could maintain their striking power over long distances .. given that actually HITTING a single target was still problematic. Still, a good archer was the product of decades of training while anyone could use a gun. This led to the usage of 'massed firepower' in war, because it was cheaper in the long run and was more effective .. if only because of the ease of training more of the yeomanry in their usage.
The charge that "guns are for killing people" is facetious and disingenuous.
Strong men and fierce warriors, and trained archers (or even crossbow users) were more effective, given body strength and training. Watch the movie "RAN" (Japan, 1985) to see the power of massed archery.
The value of firearms is that it allows even the weakest among us to defend themselves against "strong men and fierce warriors".
Today, firearms are primarily defensive weapons. And when federal courts chip away at the Second Amendment, they are making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against attack by people who can physically overpower them.
I direct you to the blog of John Lott, of "More Guns, Less Crime" fame. His post for 1/30/14 chronicles "Some great defensive gun use stories from 2013". Generally, these are stories were at home alone when strangers attempted to break into their homes. Typically, they ended up hiding in a closet and shooting through a door. Some were living in remote rural areas, where police response was very long. Typically, by the time the police responded to their frantic 911 phone calls, the attackers had cornered the women, who had nobody to protect them ... and the traumatized women had either driven way, wounded, or killed their attackers by using their guns to protect themselves.
When the courts decide that a specific firearm is not permissible for civilian ownership, or that the firearm holds "too many bullets", or concern themselves with asking "why would anyone need to own a ... " (name the currently unacceptable) variety of firearm, they are NOT limiting the firepower available to savage rapists and murderers, but to otherwise helpless innocents.
---
Those of us who accept guns as tools know that the most dangerous weapon is one which the attacker has, and the defender has not. Gun laws don't stop the felon, but they severely restrict the choices of the individual who probably knows better than some overpaid, sanctimonious judge who has never hidden in a closet while on the phone with the notoriously powerless 911 operator. All the operator can do is to say "the police are on the way" and "please keep on the line!"
Parenthetically, I have great respect for 911 operators. They deal with family and personal crisis every day. In some of the videos on Lott's website, the operators are saying "do you have a gun?" and "you do what you have to do, Ma'am". These people .. often other women ... know what it is like to feel helpless and alone.
This judicial decision .. to suggest that guns are 'bad' and must be proscribed, because they are designed "to kill people" ... have no understanding of the real purpose of firearms ownership.
When you are alone, and locked in a closet, and some brute is battering down your doors, sometimes the best two friends you have are the 911 operator and a gun in your hand. With enough ammunition to defend yourself against a raging stranger whose intentions are NOT to sell you a box of cookies!
PS: what is "An Assault Weapon"? One that holds more ammunition than you think should be needed to drive off or kill a home invader!
UPDATE:
Getting back to Connecticut Firearms Registration Laws:
Connecticut firearms owners are revolting against the new laws.
With a state motto like "he who is transplanted, still sustains", and having elected Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden as your state senators, it's difficult for this old country boy to understand how you gathered the moxie to defy your state legislature. But still you have, and we are proud of you for finally standing up for your individual rights.Gun owners in Connecticut have revolted against a new gun control law, with just 38,000 out of 2.4 million high capacity magazines being registered with authorities.Following the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012, Connecticut passed a law which banned ammunition magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds. Residents who had acquired such magazines before the law came into effect were mandated to register them with state police by January 1, 2014. The law also banned assault rifles manufactured after 1994, requiring them to be declared to authorities.Weeks after the deadline expired, authorities revealed that 50,016 assault weapons and 38,290 ammunition magazines had been registered.CT News Junkie reported that it is, “unclear how many gun owners own the banned weapons and magazines, but chose not to comply with the registration requirement.”However, a 2011 Office of Legislative Research study found that, “there are over 2.4 million large capacity magazines in Connecticut that originated at the retail level.” This number didn’t even include those not purchased at the retail level.
It's too late for you to assume the state motto of "Live Free or Die", but perhaps you could assume the unofficial state motto of Oregon:'
"Never Give An Inch!"
x
x
1 comment:
There are as many judicial opinions on any subject as there are federal judges. Do not expect uniformity In legal thought from federal judges. almost all are political appointees and some are real loony's and crackpots.
Post a Comment