The editorial Board of the Hartford Courant wants the state to enforce an unenforceable law, because it's the law, inasmuch as it is an Unconstitutional law on its face. Now they throw a temper tantrum.Connecticut has a gun problem.
More importantly, it has a legislation and law enforcement problem: Overreach.
It's estimated that perhaps scores of thousands of Connecticut residents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31.
That's the deadline imposed by a tough bipartisan gun-safety law passed by the legislature last year in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.
Oooh, BI-partisan. I guess that means when you're BI Partisan you can run over my rights without consequences.
It usually means 50 Donks and one Pub...
Widespread noncompliance with this major element of a law that was seen as a speedy and
hopefully
effective response by Connecticut to mass shootings such as the one at Sandy Hook creates a headache for the state.
Non compliance with an unconstitutional law, a headache the state government of Connecticut has created for itself, with the Hartford Courant cheering it on. And I would change the characterization of the new law as "effective". Y'all are a little short in the "effective" department.
The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.
Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.
Rifles which were last year legal are now illegal if they are not registered. The state cannot do what the federal government also can't do when it comes to basic rights. Besides, a governor's aide committed a felony that went unenforced, because he had the right credentials.
To be fair, that was a New York governor's aide. A Connecticut governor's aide would never do such a thing, nope, nope...
First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.
Unlike the first six months of near haranguing about the original registration period, this time it'll work, we swear.
Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue,
| Doubtless, indeed... |
Open the registration period back up. This time say, we really mean it this time. Then they'll register those EBRs by a factor of five. We just know it.
| That possibility having a probability somewhere between zero and one that doesn't stir the meter off the zero peg. |
State officials are already doing that which is in violation of federal law, not that this federal government would enforce that law. They won't. What new law will the state pass if its citizens, en masse, invade state police buildings and destroy all those firearms records, the existence of which are illegal under federal law. What then? Another tantrum? Another unenforceable law?
A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.
A pistol permit. Not a pistol. You need one, but the other is an option.
If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.
If you pass unconstitutional law be prepared to face the consequences when you try to enforce them. Connecticut has at least 10,000 gun owners who would think nothing of meeting state sanctioned force with their own force. And remember: there are no lines; there's only the battlefield if Connecticut persists.
| So, scores of thousands of scofflaws and a five year prison sentence. Speaking practically for a moment, d'you suppose the good citizens of Connecticut would vote you the funds to build and staff scores of new prisons to house them? |