New Haven Independent

Posted by: DingDong | June 27, 2008 9:42 AM

As to title: was a gun ownership right affirmed or created by this case?

Posted by: Chris | June 27, 2008 12:43 PM

It was affirmed. No branch of any government can "create" rights. Government tries to take them away periodically and may occasionally succeed for a period of time but rights will always win out. Even had the SCOTUS ruled against the right the right doesn't just disappear from existence. All of man's law is offensive to the natural order and in time will fail either by collapse of the artificial structure or by absolute extinction at the hand of the natural order be it the collapse of our Sun, impacting celestial body, pandemic disease or famine.

Any group delusional enough to attempt to dictate to any other natural body how it may exist under some artificial rule will fail. It's only a matter of time. Absolute liberty is the way of the universe. All chains rot and break with time and man never fails to get them back on either by his own hand or by succumbing to another. They'll just break again.

Anyway, Mr.s Dillon, I'm not going to comment on if the manufactured ban on something coined as "assault rifles" is unconstitutional or not but I will say that it is illogical. Ask yourself what defines an "assault weapon" then look it up from as many sources as you can find. Then explain to yourself why, in CT for instance, an AK-47 is illegal yet a Mini-30 is not. Why aren't the AR type rifles considered "assault weapons" under CT law? Why is it that CT's definition of "assault weapon" covers a handful of semi-automatic firearms yet dozens and dozens of identical firearms are perfectly legal?

For CT's "assault weapon" ban to have any logical continuity at all it would have to cover all semi-automatic rifles whick no doubt would have the same outcome in court as D.C.'s handgun ban just did.

That's okay. You can keep your ridiculous, illogical, laws of absolutely to quantitative merit or value as I have moved far and away and now own those firearms CT arbitrarily banned. Maybe I should mention my new home state is infinitely safer in all fields of crime compared to CT?

Here's a fun fact to wrap your heads around. In CT I can't get an AK-47 but I can get an AK-74. In MA I can't get an AK-74 but I can get an AK-47. Explain that one to me.

Mans law is as stupid as it is futile.

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | June 27, 2008 1:27 PM

Good point. I wondered about using that verb.
Our lawyers are reviewing the case, but at first blush it appears that it is the first time the Supreme Court has held that individuals have a constitutional right to gun ownership.
'Created' implies (or asserts), I think, that it wasn't there. If you go to this decision and the dissents, there is much debate about that: whether common practice was that historically everyone assumed an individual right was there all along, or not. Stevens would argue that the plain language of the amendment applies to state militias, not to individuals.
'Created' is often used by opponents of the right to privacy finding in the Griswold case so I stayed away from that.
Sections of this ruling appear to leave intact the right of government to regulate, but those will be tested.
Connecticut has a ban on assault weapons. Is that affected? It may be tested.
Also the court struck D.C.'s trigger lock requirement. Scalia specifically objected to such prohibitions because, in his view, the firearm is rendered useless for self defense. Connecticut prohibits keeping a loaded gun in the home if a minor can use the gun without permission, unless the gun is secured. Will that be tested too?

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | June 27, 2008 5:02 PM

Chris,
If you are arguing that the law is imperfect, yes. And the law does not keep up with technology, yes. So?
You seem to be arguing against any laws at all. Do I read you right?
So given changes in technology, would you draw a line anywhere?
Do you believe we have a right to our own Stinger surface to air missiles? They're portable and light, easily mounted on your shoulder. I might even do it.
The Stinger's range to take out aircraft is about 10-15,000 feet. So a Stinger could do a fair amount of damage if anyone were running around the woods in Pennsylvania, or the streets of Hartford.
I won't mention nuclear weapons, though your argument leads there.
No restrictions at all? Is that what you are saying?

Posted by: Chris | June 28, 2008 12:55 PM

I am saying no restrictions at all if preferable to the illogical, cartoonish and always ineffective arbitrary restrictions that currently exist.

Let my neighbor have a surface to air missile if he wants and can afford it. He has a fairly large truck and has yet to plow though a bunch of kids at a bus stop. He has a kitchen cabinet full of toxic chemicals and has yet to dump them into the well. He carries a pocket knife with him daily and has yet to slash and stab anyone. If he had a shoulder mounted missile launcher I have every reason to believe he will respect it and handle it with the same constraint he handles anything else he owns. If somebody can afford to own and operate such a thing by all means let them pick one up go off to a range or on their own land and fire it off. Maybe it would cost less than 5 figures for that instant of recreation but I doubt it.

I don't understand what you mean by 'keeping up with technology.' Has the technology of a projectile launched by rapidly expanding gas somehow changed since it's inception? Lets say it has. Suddenly it no longer qualifies as an arm to bear? Suddenly it exists beyond the realm of reality and therefore should not be permitted to exist among those who dwell within reality?

Nuclear weapons? I suppose my argument does lead there. As far as I know there are no restrictions on an individual acquiring a nuclear device. Sure, any nearby government would certainly disapprove and the U.N. would no doubt send you a strongly worded letter but I personally do not recall signing onto any treaty or agreement. In this case wouldn't this make any attempt to remove the device from me a hostile action and aggressive action which would certainly demand a defense of self? All of this would require I not be a raving lunatic who openly and regularly spoke of destroying or murdering my fellow man of course. Otherwise the owning of a nuclear device coupled with such declarations would warrant a defensive act of those neighboring governments and the subjects of my threats. Come to think of it, I don't know that there are in fact any barriers in place that specifically prohibit me or anyone from owning a shoulder mounted missile launcher.

If you're done figuring out why the AK-47 is banned in CT but not the AK-74 or Mini-30 or any other semi-automatic rifle or if you've finished working out the definition of "assault rifle" I have another riddle for you. In CT it is against state law to own a select fire firearm yet perfectly legal to own a fully automatic machine gun. It's funny the state would not want me to be able to fire my rifle less rapidly and demand I maintain a high rate of constant fire, isn't it?

Before I left CT these laws were the most horrible thing to me. Worse the high cost of living, worse than the revolving door jails, worse than the taxation, worse even than the daily crime I had to put up with in New Haven. They weren't so bad because they prevented me from having something I wanted. They weren't so bad because they violated the very essence of true liberty. They were so unbearable because they were inconsistent, illogical and completely arbitrary. No law maker in the state could or would answer my questions regarding them. I even wrote you a few times asking you these same questions. Don't those who make up and pass these laws know why they are the way they are? What is an assault rifle besides a semi-auto that somebody saw in a movie? Why can I own fully automatic machine guns but not select-fire?

Anyway, yes, I am saying no to restrictions.

I'm glad you are reading this. Maybe you could learn something and grow beyond your inherent bias and prejudice toward what I can only assume you have no experience with. If what you want is the complete eradication of the right to bear arms and you see every arbitrary, incomplete, illogical law and regulation as a way to chip away at the block than please just admit it and say so. Say that banning the sale of bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds is one step closer to banning the entire firearm and be proud of it. Come out and say that banning an arbitrary list of "assault rifles" is just one step closer to a complete ban on all semi-auto firearms and be proud of it. If this is the goal say so. At least then the irrationality of the laws would be explained. They don't have to make sense or even be effective because they all designed to complete the objective of a total ban. Just say it if it's true. Say you don't know what a barrel shroud it and you don't care what it is ans as long as it has anything to do with guns it should be banned. The honesty and candor would be refreshing. I grow very tired of the same arguments over and over such as "no restrictions would put missiles and nukes in the hands of junkies and felons, is that what you want?" kind of garbage. You want me to be afraid of my neighbor with a missile launcher and Bush want me to be afraid of some guy in a cave on the other side of the world but that's a different rant.

Posted by: Edward_H | June 29, 2008 9:28 AM

Chris.

Well said.

You moved to Vermont?

Posted by: DingDong | June 29, 2008 10:37 PM

"They weren't so bad because they violated the very essence of true liberty."

Lo and behold -- the essence of true liberty defined as a possession of an assault rifle.

If you are making the more subtle point that "arbitrary and illogical laws" are a violation of the essence of true liberty, then sure, go ahead and ban all firearms and let's do it in the name of philosophical consistency (if safety and sanity aren't enough to do it for you). Bishop Peeples just might agree in the result, if not the reasoning: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/06/three_shot_on_w.php

Posted by: Deuce | June 30, 2008 8:15 AM

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Posted by: Chris | June 30, 2008 9:32 AM

Edward_H,

I fled to New Hampshire.

And DINGDONG, yes, work to ban every last one for the sake of consistency. Please. Enough of this fence-sitting and politicking nonsense. Why bother with pointless games like attacking barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs? If Dillon and others want them gone let them say so and act accordingly.

And good job dragging out the classic story of a crime to illustrate the evils of a device. For that tactic to be of any value I would have to be equally justified in stating instances and names of those who have not been harmed or hurt by gun-related crimes as proof instances of damage and death are exceedingly rare. Sucks that three have been shot but I'm sitting in a room with three people who have not been shot. There are more guns owned by more people where I am now with much looser laws and a higher percentage of people carrying everyday than in CT. CT has an idiot problem not a gun problem. If you start buying into the scapegoat (the gun) then you'll never work out the real problem. Keep blaming the Sun for your thirst and you'll be too busy to simply take a drink.

Using victims of crime to support your rationalization is as tired and flawed as Dillon's "local gangsters will carry shoulder mounted missile launchers" argument. I wouldn't mind the constant back and forth nearly as much if it would evolve beyond the empty bumper-sticker statements I've been listening to since the second grade. They were wrong and ineffective then there are wrong and ineffective now.

Posted by: James | June 30, 2008 11:04 AM

@DingDong

Let me relate a little story to you on what I have had to do thus far to obtain my firearms permit. First, I had to take a 2-day, 10 hour safety and training course and be certified by the NRA at the cost of $100. I then had to submit to the New haven Police several pages of information requiring the services of a notary on three separate occasions (cost of the notary was about $12 give or take). I then had to obtain an official copy of my birth certificate. Oh, and a current, passport-sized photo of myself. I then had to go back to the Police Office to be fingerprinted, available only Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday from 8 to 10AM. Two sets cost me $12. I then had to obtain three money orders (no checks, credit cards, or cash accepted) in the amounts of $35 (City of New Haven) $19.95 (Commissioner of Public Safety) and another $35.00 (Department of Public Safety). From that point you have to wait eight weeks to get your temporary license. With your temporary license in hand you have to go to DPS (that's in Middletown) where you pay once again (I think $20 or so but I'm not there yet). So, to recap, we're looking at about $215 in fees and approximately 10 weeks (at best, though for me we're looking at close to 20 weeks due to my hectic schedule). Once I have that, I can own and keep a firearm. Oh, figure in the gun itself and a lock box (the absolute minimum required) figure another $800. So, roughly 4 months of my time and approximately $1,000 to legally arm myself.

Now, how many of the shootings that took place in New Haven in the last 12 months do you think were committed by legally licensed individuals carrying legally purchased firearms? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say zero. Let me tell you how someone less scrupulous might go about obtaining a firearm. Go out and buy a black market firearm. No clue what that would cost, but likely less onerous than the legal process, no?

So tell me, if you make it illegal to own a firearm, who do you think will then be unarmed? Do you think that the criminals, already purchasing and carrying illegally will be affected? Granted, if they're illegal there may be fewer available to steal, but that would only raise the black market value a bit. Since I see half these kids driving around in BMWs and Benzes I hardly think that affording one would be a problem.

So while I'm not a big fan of the NRA cliche quoted by Deuce, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," it rings true. Anybody responsible enough to abide by the law in the first place is not really your ideal candidate for a drive-by or a drug-related shooting. Anybody disturbed or maladjusted enough to murder will find a way. Some corner kid with a grudge isn't going to reconsider murder because it's illegal to own a gun.

An aside to Chris, yes, it most certainly would be illegal to be in possession of a nuclear weapon. If you want to find out how illegal, just keep talking about it in public. I'm sure the FBI would be glad to let you know the penalty first-hand. I hear Cuba is lovely this time of year, and orange is the "in" color this season. Also, it is no more legal to own a full-auto than it is a select-fire. Both require a special license. Both can be obtained, but are subject to difficult and onerous licensing restrictions. Yes, the law is inconsistent and often arbitrary or poorly realized. But any idiot can get a driver's license. It take a bit more to get a CDL to drive a big rig. I think that it's perfectly logical that the amount of legislation/regulation increases proportionally to the volume of damage one can cause, be it a Mac truck or a Mac-11. In theory, I support regulation. In practice, yeah, it's a mess.

Posted by: Ned | June 30, 2008 3:22 PM

Really the biggest threat (though maybe not the most immediate) that citizens face is from politicians.