Tag Archives: Controllers

As J.D. Tuccille
noted yesterday, the Connecticut General Assembly is
passing a new set of gun restrictions on an “emergency” basis,
thereby avoiding the inconvenience and potential embarrassment of
public hearings. Still, Connecticut’s legislators are slowpokes
compared to New York’s, who managed to
pass a gun control package demanded by Gov. Andrew Cuomo three
months ago, on the first full day of their current session. (It
helps if you don’t bother to read legislation before approving it.)
Did the people of Connecticut benefit from their legislature’s
comparatively contemplative approach? That depends on your
perspective.
While New York reduced its magazine limit from 10 rounds to
seven, Connecticut, which had no magazine limit until now, settled
on 10 in its Act
Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety. That
might strike gun controllers as inexcusably lax, but it does have
the advantage (or disadvantage?) of corresponding to magazines that
actually exist. Cuomo, after realizing he had mandated magazines
that are not available for most firearms, proposed changing the law
so that people can still buy 10-round magazines, as long as they
don’t put more than seven rounds in them.
I am totally serious. Connecticut’s lawmakers liked that
approach so much that they decreed something similar for currently
owned (and properly “declared”) magazines capable of holding more
than 10 rounds: You can keep them as long as you don’t load them
with more than 10 rounds. Except at home. Or the shooting range. Or
on Tuesdays. OK, I a made up that last one. But Connecticut does
cut gun owners a bit more slack than New York does when it comes to
loading their magazines.
While Connecticut’s legislators apparently can imagine
self-defense scenarios where people might benefit from having more
than 10 rounds in a magazine at home, they seem to think that
possibility is inconceivable at a “place of business,” where the
10-round limit applies even to magazines capable of holding more.
Still, they treat adding an extra round as a less serious offense
than their New York counterparts, making it a Class C misdemeanor
(punishable by up to three months in jail), compared to a Class B
misdemeanor (punishable by up to six months in jail) in New York.
Possessing a previously owned “large capacity magazine” without
declaring it is an “infraction” punishable by a $90 fine the first
time around, after which it leaps to a Class D felony, punishable
by a prison sentence of up to five years—the same as the penalty
for possessing a “large capacity magazine” purchased after this
section takes effect on January 1. Given the lenient treatment of a
first offense by owners of previously purchased but undeclared
“large capacity magazines” (a small fine rather than a prison
sentence), why would anyone admit to obtaining one after the law
took effect, especially since the government would have a hard time
proving he had?
Connecticut’s approach
to broadening its “assault weapon” ban is similar to New York’s: In
addition to adding scores of models to its list of guns that are
prohibited by name, Connecticut is reducing the number of tolerable
“military-style” characteristics from one to zero. A semiautomatic
rifle with a detachable magazine will henceforth be deemed an
“assault weapon” in Connecticut, for example, if it has one or more
of these features: ;1) “a folding or telescoping stock,” 2)
“any grip of the weapon, including a ;pistol
grip, ;thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which
would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any
finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being
directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when
firing,” 3) “a forward pistol grip,” 4) “a flash suppressor,” or 5)
“a grenade launcher or flare launcher.”
New York lists
seven features instead of five. One of the additional two is a
thumbhole stock, counted separately from “a pistol grip that
protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon”; the
other is a “bayonet mount,” which Connecticut decided to drop
because it was so
fucking ridiculous ;the ability to skewer victims at
close range has yet to prove decisive in a mass shooting. Sen.
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also left “bayonet mount” out of her
new, supposedly improved
“assault weapon” ban, although she is still determined to ban
the barrel shrouds that apparently do not trouble legislators in
New York or Connecticut (except on pistols), and she upped the
silliness factor by tacking on “rocket launcher.” Then again,
Feinstein dropped flash suppressors, which New York and Connecticut
continue to view as an intolerable threat to public safety, from
her list of forbidden features. (She does, however, include “a
threaded barrel…designed in such a manner to allow for the
attachment of a device such as a firearm silencer or a flash
suppressor.”) It’s almost like these definitions are
completely arbitrary.
Current owners of newly redefined “assault weapons” in
Connecticut are required to register those guns with the state.
Possessing a previously owned but unregistered “assault weapon” is
a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to a year in jail) the
first time around; then it becomes a Class D felony, punishable by
at least a year and as much as five years in prison. That’s the
same as the penalty for possessing a newly acquired “assault
weapon.” In short, while you can slap as many barrel shrouds or
bayonet mounts on your gun as you want in Connecticut, ;a flash
suppressor or adjustable stock can send you to prison. For the
children. … Read More