Our gun debate is going to be hell.
But you know what? Read a better column on this. Read Tom Condon’s.
Tom Condon’s piece is fine as an explanation of his reluctance to arm himself in his home, of his no-gun sensibility. But, as to the “debate” we are going to engage in, it isn’t worth much. We need to understand what the constitutional (both Ct. and U.S.)limits may be on the right to bear arms, and what the prudence of, the public policy virtue of, any proposed new laws may be.
In doing my bit to understand the gun control arguments, I have become confused. I had understood that the weapon the little creep in Newtown used was legally owned by his mother, but my reading of Connecticut statute indicates that Bushmaster rifle is illegal. What am I missing?
Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. (a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, “assault weapon” means:
(1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15
Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony. (a) Except as provided in section 53-202e, any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced; except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor if (1) the person presents proof that he lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993, and (2) the person has otherwise possessed the firearm in compliance with subsection (d) of section 53-202d.
It was a crippled Bushmaster AFAIK. One that meets the law. That’s one of the issues–manufacturers tweaking specs to circumvent the law.
The Connecticut law restricts semi-automatic rifles — those capable of firing a bullet with each pull of the trigger — only if they include a detachable magazine as well as at least two of five specific features.
Yes. Thanks for the Courant piece.
I’m still not understanding, though. The statute defining “assault weapon” first enumerates particular weapons that are forbidden. This list includes the “Bushmaster Auto Rifle.”
The statute then proceeds to identify particular attributes that would cause a weapon to be categorized as “assault,” even if not on the list. In other words, the statute seems to provide for two ways a rifle might be an “assault weapon.” Either it can be on the list, or it can have a combination of certain attributes.
(3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
(i) A folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) A bayonet mount;
(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) A grenade launcher
Do you just adore a story with happy ending? All of the anti-gun folks think about how you’d feel if you were facng these robbers unarmed.
Gun sales jumped after the Petit shootings. It’s problematic when we sell 1 million guns in Ct in a decade. It’s equally problematic that Hayes and K didn’t use guns. People are wuicker to claim they ar ementally ill rather than look at the social problems of single males facing hardships including release from prison. I expect CT to become more violent over the next decade when we enter the next recession adn retirees flee.