this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
108 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2744 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut's most wide-ranging gun control measure since the 2013 law enacted after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting takes effect Sunday, with proponents vowing to pursue more gun legislation despite legal challenges happening across the country.

The new law, signed by Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont in June, bans the open carrying of firearms and prohibits the sale of more than three handguns within 30 days to any one person, with some exceptions for instructors and others.

"We will not take a break and we cannot stop now, and we will continue to pass life-saving laws until we end gun violence in Connecticut. Our lives depend on it," said Jeremy Stein, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence.

Immediately after it was passed, the law was challenged in court by gun rights supporters. Connecticut's landmark 2013 gun law, passed in response to the 2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown that claimed 26 lives, is also being contested in court.

Besides Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, other politically liberal-leaning states including California, Washington, Colorado and Maryland also have passed gun laws this year that face legal challenges. They come in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court last year expanding gun rights.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom this week signed nearly two dozen gun control measures, including laws banning firearms being carried in most public places while doubling taxes on guns and ammunition sold in the state. He acknowledged some might not survive a legal challenge. Last week, a federal judge struck down a California law banning guns with detachable magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.

"We feel very strongly that these bills meet the (new standard), and they were drafted accordingly," Newsom said. "But I'm not naive about the recklessness of the federal courts and the ideological agenda." Court challenges ahead

Connecticut gun rights advocates held a rally at the state Capitol on Saturday to mark the last day that carrying a visible firearm is legal there. But they are hopeful the law will eventually be overturned in court, arguing it's an infringement on Second Amendment rights.

The new law also increases bail and toughens probation and parole for what officials called a narrow group of people with repeated serious gun offenses; expands the state's current assault weapons ban; stiffens penalties for possession of large-capacity magazines; expands safe-storage rules to include more settings; and adds some domestic violence crimes to the list of disqualifications for having a gun.

Republican legislative leaders, who represent the minority party in the state General Assembly, accused Democrats of bragging about how safe Connecticut is because of the gun laws when there have been carjackings, serious property crimes and other acts of violence. House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, a Republican from North Branford, said claims Connecticut is one of the safest states are a "slap in the face" to residents.

"Enough with the news conferences — Democrats should step away from the lectern and tap into what's happening in their districts," he said in a statement.

State Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a Democrat from New Haven, called the legislation a "very significant initiative" but stressed "the battle is not over."

Connecticut is vulnerable to states with looser gun laws, Looney said. He wants to pursue further limits on monthly gun purchases and require microlabeling or ammunition microstamping to help law enforcement trace bullet casings to specific firearms makes and modes.

Lamont, who proposed the newly enacted law, said he is interested in working with fellow governors in the Northeast to draft similar laws, given how the technology is changing so fast and Connecticut "can only do so much within our small state and within our borders."

all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oooh, man. That's a lot of stuff that'll be stricken down.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like what? It's infringing on your rights to bear arms underneath your coat? You gotta have a gun for each one of your appendages (and right frickin now)? And [if the tech actually existed] it's an infringement if you can't discharge your firearm anonymously?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Connecticut gun rights advocates held a rally at the state Capitol on Saturday to mark the last day that carrying a visible firearm is legal there.

The new law also increases bail and toughens probation and parole for what officials called a narrow group of people with repeated serious gun offenses; expands the state's current assault weapons ban; stiffens penalties for possession of large-capacity magazines; expands safe-storage rules to include more settings; and adds some domestic violence crimes to the list of disqualifications for having a gun.

Republican legislative leaders, who represent the minority party in the state General Assembly, accused Democrats of bragging about how safe Connecticut is because of the gun laws when there have been carjackings, serious property crimes and other acts of violence.

House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, a Republican from North Branford, said claims Connecticut is one of the safest states are a "slap in the face" to residents.

State Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a Democrat from New Haven, called the legislation a "very significant initiative" but stressed "the battle is not over."

He wants to pursue further limits on monthly gun purchases and require microlabeling or ammunition microstamping to help law enforcement trace bullet casings to specific firearms makes and modes.


The original article contains 619 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] No1RivenFucker -2 points 1 year ago

Fuck Connecticut. I hope the courts see this for the unconstitutional shit heap it is.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

bans the open carrying of firearms

Fine. Kinda. Are there exceptions for hunting, camping and private property?

prohibits the sale of more than three handguns within 30 days to any one person

Fuck is that supposed to solve?! "Gosh, I'd better put of my emotional and/or planned killing spree! I only got 2 new pistols this month!" It costs political capital making the law a new loss for gun safety.

require microlabeling or ammunition microstamping

I say again, this technology does not exist and cannot exist. These idiots watch too many cop shows.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fuck is that supposed to solve?! "Gosh, I'd better put of my emotional and/or planned killing spree! I only got 2 new pistols this month!" It costs political capital making the law a new loss for gun safety.

Probably aimed at reducing straw purchases.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Has Connecticut managed to provide some data highlighting straw purchases as some sort of incredible problem to solve?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Of course they haven't. Straw purchases are notoriously hard to prosecute.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I don’t mind the other provisions but the micro stamping doesn’t seem like it would work. Bullets are usually obliterated and putting a stamp on the casing would make it easy to scratch off.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought open carry had a built in exception for private property (where you’re presumably hunting). And you can always have an unloaded gun in a case in the back seat or in your trunk or wherever while you drive out to your property.

I could be wrong. We barely have any gun laws where I live (Louisiana). But I understood open carry as “visible to others but not in a threatening position.” And concealed is obviously hidden and what constitutes a threatening position varies. (So, maybe Connecticut considers it brandishing if it’s loaded, Louisiana and other big hunting states draw the line at aiming at a person with the safety off, and Texas allows fancy gun handling and a few warning shots at the feet if you’re making a city boy dance.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

draw the line at aiming at a person with the safety off

It bothers me that there's a law that explicitly allows breaking one of the cardinal rules of firearm safety. If you point a gun at someone, that's threatening deadly injury, period. Either that or "Don't point your gun at anything you don't intend to destroy" is a bad rule.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah you're right. It's a losing battle

Gosh, I'd better put of my emotional and/or planned killing spree! I only got 2 new pistols this month!

If we can't devise quote "effective" gun control legislation (whatever that means to you, to me it means no guns at all), let's just let everyone have access to guns, per their constitutional right. That will curb these mass shootings. If not, those shooters were mentally ill and the outcome was unavoidable!

Are there exceptions for hunting, camping and private property?

Won't somebody think of the hunters or the property owners?!? Their way of life, shattered. I can name half a dozen people who hunt in the state of CT and they're happy about more gun control

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

If we can’t devise quote “effective” gun control legislation (whatever that means to you, to me it means no guns at all), let’s just let everyone have access to guns, per their constitutional right.

Or, phrased so as to correctly highlight where the burdens lie, if a restrictive firearm measure isn't directly tied to a facet of firearm violence as an attempt to address a specific problem supported by an abundance of data and reasoning - aka well-justified - it should be resisted as yet another ineffective measure that can only serve as an incremental move toward defacto bans.