Connecticut’s Gun-Control Law Triggers New Challenge Under Heller

The Supreme Court has still not dismissed a New York gun case where New York City officials passed, in my view, a clearly unconstitutional gun control measure. Then, after proclaiming that they would defend the law to the Supreme Court, they tried desperately to withdraw the case after review was granted. That creates a serious question of mootness in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. However, they may have pushed this game too far with the Court, which clearly did not like being played by politicians using the courts for grandstanding. Yet, there is a case out of Connecticut that could prove equally, if not more, important in defining the edges of the Second Amendment.

​​​​​​​A lawsuit has been filed to challenge part of a 2013 state gun control law passed after the Sandy Hook school shooting. It is a complaint that shows how focus and restraint can make for a much stronger case. The complaint isolated the ban on people loading more than 10 rounds of ammunition into their firearms. The law allows people to have larger magazines but bars citizens from loading more than ten bullets.

The law will force the court to consider the real benefits and logic behind such laws. The vast majority of gun owners are law-bidding. The small number people committing Sandy Hook massacres are likely to violate the “ten bullets only” rule if they are prepared to commit mass murder. Moreover, even the use of small magazines only require fast swapping of such magazines – something most gun owners become apt at doing at gun ranges.

The 2013 Connecticut law defines “large capacity magazine” to mean any firearm magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Under the law, anyone who owns large capacity magazines before Jan. 1, 2014, are required to declare possession to the state’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection and are prohibited from loading more than 10 rounds into the magazines.

I have written how these laws satisfy political needs but offer less practical protections. (here and here and here). The fact is that, despite recent claims on the presidential campaign trail, the range of action for gun control was dramatically reduced after Heller.

The Connecticut law is precisely what gun control advocates should fear the most — much like the ill-considered New York law. It will force a review of the edges of allowable regulation of Second Amendment rights on the basis of a state law that may prove difficult to fully defend.

107 thoughts on “Connecticut’s Gun-Control Law Triggers New Challenge Under Heller”

  1. We are compelled to presume that the 2nd Amendment was not deliberated incoherently or written erroneously. The authors edified Americans as to the fact that militias (i.e. generic groups or forces of armed men) are necessary to the security of a free state (whether in support or opposition to the contemporary government), then they declared that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    1. The first time around, I was a way better shot than my brother and most of his male friends, minus 2, at the shooting range.

      You can say I came in 3rd out of a group of ~9. They all got a good laugh, mostly at my brother’s expense. Can’t say I was re-invited out though.

      So, don’t forget to include some of us women in the militia, I guess we fall under generic group though. Meh, that’s fine. 😉

  2. A militia is simply a military force, which may be private or governmental, local, state or federal or pro- or anti-government.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”

    The threat to security may be from insurrectionists or tyrannical despots, causing the militia to oppose the true threat.

    “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    People have the right to keep and bear arms in order to join the militia of their choice; to support the government or overthrow it.


    militia (plural militias or militiae)

    An army of trained civilians, which may be an official reserve army, called upon in time of need, the entire able-bodied population of a state which may also be called upon, or a private force not under government control.

    – Wiki

    Militia from Latin miles


    mīles m (genitive mīlitis); third declension

    1. (military) A soldier.

    2. A man in boardgames such as ludus latrunculi and chess.

  3. I was trying to get somebody appropriate to refute BTB’s understanding of the Constitution but the neighbor’s fifth grader was busy feeding the cat. I’ll check with the cat later.

  4. Note to Supreme Court: You have no power to amend the Constitution. You have but one charge which is to assure that actions comport with statute and fundamental law. Let’s read along together:

    2nd Amendment

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The Constitution, with emphasis on the Bill of Rights, states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You, the Supreme Court, have allowed, and done nothing to cease, the incremental, ubiquitous and repeated infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. You, the Supreme Court, are criminals in violation of American fundamental law. Justices, you have no other duty in this matter. Your dereliction and negligence remove the discipline from a self-governing society of laws, cause citizens to doubt and to conspire. It is the duty of the Supreme Court “…to void all acts contrary to the manifest tenor…” of the English language in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Justices, you swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

    Your crimes are the singular, egregious American failure.

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  5. bythebook, no, the militia are governors’ troops. The Prez commands the National Guards.

    1. Anonymous, the constitution says “the militia” shall be under the funding, training, and command of the President and Congress. Look it up.

      1. The well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, may be turned on the forces enslaving the once-free state. The people have the right to keep and bear arms as individuals in order to be prepared to join the militia of their choice. “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” _________________________________________________________

        There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause.

        Operative clause: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause is the actual protected right; kind of the ‘meat and potatoes.’ The court wrote: “1. Operative Clause. a. ‘Right of the People.’ [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] … All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.” (p.5).

        Prefatory clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” The prefatory clause is the lead-in that “announces a purpose” for the operative clause.

        – MIC

        “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,…”

        “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….”

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….”

        – Declaration of Independence, Fifty-Six Founding Signatories

      2. Only when the states’ militias are to be used, “in the Service of the United States,” or elsewhere, “when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

        – goes back to what you mentioned in another post about how much Washington loathed the unreliability of the militia. Their indiscipline cost him numerous battles. In his mind, if they’re going to serve, they need to be trained and more properly armed. He would have appreciated Switzerland’s approach to their militia – arm them, then send them home with their arms.

      3. The lines between formal and informal militias were blurred.

        George Washington employed British subjects of King George III to overthrow the tyranny of King George III.

        Local civilian militias were the origins of the Continental Army.

        “The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time. During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were members of the militia, depending on the respective states rule. Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.”

        – Wiki

        “The Continental Army was supplemented by local militias and volunteer troops that remained under control of the individual states or were otherwise independent.”

        – Wiki

        All that aside, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

  6. I’m divided on gun laws in general.

    On the one hand, I really do wish it was more difficult for delusional people and criminals to get their hands on guns. On the other hand, whenever I hear or read about a Leftist wanting to nibble away at the first two amendments – which is all the time – it makes me want to get a better gun and stock up on ammo.

    When the Framers penned the Bill of Rights, the tyranny of the oligarchy and mob rule of the Left is exactly the kind of thing they had in mind to protect us from. I’d be more open to further infringements on our second amendment right if it wasn’t coming from a party that desperately wants to eliminate ALL of my rights – just as soon as they’ve taken away my ability to resist.

    1. em, that is not what the founders had in mind or they would not have qualified the 2nd amendment with the necessity of a militia which by the constitution are to be trained, funded, and under the orders of the President and Congress.

      1. Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms – not right of the militia to store arms somewhere at the direction and discretion of the federal government.

        They didn’t qualify anything. They put the right of the people to bear arms, and the right of a state to regulate its own militia because historically the two go together.

        Your conception of a “militia” is completely at odds with reality, practicality, and history.

        The Battle of Lexington and Concord is a perfect example of what’s wrong what with the concept you’ve been promoting. The Brits marched on Concord to seize the militia’s military supplies. The militia attacked them both coming and going – before they reached their store of military supplies, and after they destroyed the military supplies. They were able to attack them because they already HAD weapons. By your definition of what a militia is, they would’ve been screwed because they wouldn’t have had their own arms. They would’ve had to chuck rocks at the invaders.

        1. em, you left out “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …’

          Elsewhere in the constitution it tells you who will regulate the militia – the President and Congress.

          Perhaps this was in response to George Washington’s observations:

          General George Washington wrote on September 30, 1776, “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”

          1. btb – in 1776 Washington would have been commanding State militias under the Articles of Confederation. Minor historical point.

            1. That’s correct Paul, which is why I commented that GWs criticism might have helped fuel the “well regulated” clause as well as the passages on funding, training, and command of the militia by the President and Congress.

          2. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …’

            No, I didn’t. You’ve mistaken it’s import. That’s telling you you have a personal right to keep and bear military arms.

            1. Funny no courts found that to be true until SC activists discovered a right hidden from all the other jurists for over 200 years.

              Are you em?

          3. Article 1, Section 8. That only authorizes the federal government to summon part of the states’ militias in times of national need. That has nothing to do with a free individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

            I tried to post a link, but apparently I can’t… if you do a search for, “The Founders on The Right To Keep and Bear Arms,” there’s an excellent collection of quotes put together by tysknews.

            The Framers understood completely the differences between standing armies, militias, and the rights of individuals to own and possess their own firearms. And one glance at the United States standing armed forces, the federal national guard, and the states’ national guards, and the Framers would have been even more convinced of the necessity of individuals to keep their own firearms. They’d probably amend the second amendment on the spot to state, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, especially AR 15s will not be infringed.”

          4. @bythebook, thank you for the excerpt – made me crack open my copy of Washington’s Writings again. The letter you quoted is a great one. It’s one of the ones I had bookmarked. Speaking of the militia, and his predicament, he writes, “In short, such is my situation that if I were to wish the bitterest curse to an enemy on this side of the grave, I should put him in my stead with my feelings;” and later, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”

            Great stuff. I never finished going through them all, but I really need to.

  7. lonestarlizard — ‘Tis better to remaining silent and be through the a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

    Too bad that you cannot recognize sarcasm.

    — David B Benson

  8. Liberty 2nd — You mean to state that the terrorists haven’t already taken over?

    Lord lov a duck …

    — David B Benson

  9. As pointed out by several, the problem is high velocity. Arms in the 18th century were low velocity. Use that as the speed limit.

    1. As pointed out by me, your cluelessness is vast. Velocity was vastly increased in the late 19th century by the advent of smokeless powders. All modern firearms today are chambered for smokeless powder cartridges, the only exceptions being retro-style black powder guns that some shooters and hunters use on occasion. Trying to limit bullet velocity as a means to solve a dubious problem is foolhardy to the extreme.

  10. Given the outlier Heller decision written by an activist court, the best way forward – until the court eventually represents Americans again (who have voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 6 out of the last 7 elections) – is intelligent and informed laws on gun control

    On controlling the increasing incidents of mass shooters, we should focus on clip size, but more importantly on outlawing the weapons like the AR-15, whose prototypes were designed to kill humans as efficiently as possible with a highly portable weapon. The main features which distinguish these weapons is not their appearance, but the combination of high velocity, low mass rounds. By the laws of physics, damage from a moving object increases exponentially by it’s speed and but only in a staright ratio by weight. Additionally, smaller rounds mean lower recoil – kick – and thus a higher level of control by the shooter. Coupled with low weight and short weapons, and high capacity clips these are true killing machines which make the work of doctors tasked with treating the wounded very difficult. Tissue and organs that are even close to the bullets path explode.

    This is from an article written by one of the attending physicians to victims brought in from the Parkland School shooting. Google the subject and you will find both technical and first hand anecdotes from others docs that agree.

    By the way, JT, most Americans don’t go to shooting ranges, even those who own guns.

    “I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs…..

    In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

    I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

    The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal….

    Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

    I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a swat team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

    With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care.

    One of my ER colleagues was waiting nervously for his own children outside the school. While the shooting was still in progress, the first responders were gathering up victims whenever they could and carrying them outside the building. Even as a physician trained in trauma situations, there was nothing he could do at the scene to help save the victims who had been shot with the AR-15. Most of them died on the spot; they had no fighting chance at life….”

    1. By the book, this was so informative, and words can’t express how horrific that is. I’ve seen a few deaths in front of my eyes over the last 3 years, one in 2018, one at the end of 2019, and the helicopter in 2020 (I actually didn’t see it, as a witness, but I saw the helicopter, assuming at least one person was in there.

      And since this has been a reoccurring theme lately, it’s been on my mind what doctors and nurses and other healthcare professionals see day in and day out on their jobs helping other people, especially ER professionals.

      The details of a smashed in melon were descriptive. I have an image in my mind of what that looks like…so perhaps, the elimination of high powered unnecessary guns is a good middle ground, without elimination of the 2nd Amendment.

      1. WW33 – there are NO unnecessary guns. Part of the purpose of the 2nd Amend is to arm us against the government. Remember the Minute Men had cannon they were protecting.

        As times have changed and lethality has changed, the citizens should have the right to be armed at the same level the government is. Lethality for leathality.

        1. Since the constitution lays out the funding, training, and command of the (“well regulated”) militia as by the President and Congress, it is difficult to see how the writers intended it to be a threat against the government the constitution intends to define. Paul’s fantasy is not in the constitution.

          1. btb – that is only if the militia is called up for national service. You really have got to learn to read better. We have a militia here in Arizona and the Feds are not and have never made use of it.

  11. The large capacity magazine issue is important because it restricts the peoples’ ability to resist a tyrannical government. That, by the way, is the whole intent of the Second Amendment. Militias were a means, not the end. The National Guard wasn’t established until early in the Twentieth Century and then as a means of preventing states from having their own military forces as they did prior to the Civil War.

    1. That’s false semc and illogical. Under the constitution the militia is to be funded, trained, and under orders of the president and Congress. The militia in this form no longer exists, and the qualified right to guns based on that now obsolete organization no longer makes sense.

      1. btb – “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        Do you see the words President or Congress anywhere in the amendment?
        The word State is capitalized, though. Funny that. Militias are an arm of the State and not the Feds. There have been cases of militia refusing to leave their State, even though called up in national defense.

          1. btb – Militia is also singular. Arizona has a designated Militia, apart from the National Guard, as part of its Constitution.

            1. Paul the constitution says nothing about Arizona. It does say “the militia” shall be under the funding, training, and command of the President and Congress. Surely you can find the constitution without a cite.

                1. Paul, the constitution.

                  You want a bib to wear while I spoon feed you?

                  1. btb – exactly right, I want you to spoon feed me. Cites, please.

                    1. GFY. If you don’t know or can’t look up the constitution you’re in the wrong place. Try Lady Gaga’s tweets.

      2. There is no ‘qualified’ right implied in the 2A. There is a prefatory clause and the operative clause, which includes “..shall not be infringed.”

        Heller is quite clear on this.

        1. Heller was an outlier ruling by a SC legislating from the bench. Even conservative judges and scholars, like Judge Posner, found it to be a granting of a right not otherwise recognized by the court in over 200 years.

          1. Heller was an outlier ruling by a SC legislating from the bench.

            It was nothing of the kind. See Clayton Cramer on this point. Find an example of the phrase ‘the right of the people’ referring to anything but a personal right.

              1. The point Cramer makes is that it was not in the early 19th century done anywhere to use that phrase to refer to some sort of collective right. The notion that the framers composed the phrase with an idiosyncratic usage is…motivated reasoning.

            1. TIA:

              Point of Personal Privilege: Why do you argue with a fool like btb? He knows Heller is no outlier and well-settled law — especially so in view of the subsequent McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) decision which held that the 2nd Amendment rights explained in Heller were incorporated against the States through the 14th Amendment. Maybe he doesn’t know that, which, of course, would make talking to him even more ridiculous as some bricklayer lays claim to expounding on legal opinions he can’t begin to fathom.

              1. I’m not sure why I talk to anyone online. Gainesville’s a Dunning-Kruger exemplar, not compared to an expert, but compared to shmoes like me who just read the paper. The level of conceit is fascinating in its way; the really anomalous aspect of that is that he has a serious trade and his Yelp-type reviews aren’t bad; I’d ordinarily expect that sort of thing from school administrators or social workers. (Peter’s not a Dunning-Kruger exemplar; he’s a team player; Natacha’s just a head case; different phenomena).

                I’m assuming his son feeds him the wishcasting in which the Laurence Tribe types in the law faculties engage. A generation ago, Michael Kinsley (a disaffected lawyer) wrote a column on this subject the import of which was that the public interest bar and the law faculties would absolutely never take the approach they do to the 2d Amendment’s text if it were a right about which they cared.

                1. TIA:
                  “I’m assuming his son feeds him the wishcasting in which the Laurence Tribe types in the law faculties engage.”
                  Figured that he had a legal rabbi who gives him enough legal lingo to sound knowledgeable without of course being so.i hate a poser – especially a transparent one.

              2. Why do you argue with a fool like btb?

                It really is a pointless exercise when fools like btb reject the root philosophy the framers had for the purpose of government. His philosophy of rights and government defies logic. For instance, he wants government to do nothing that would infringe the alienable right of woman to kill her unborn child, but would enable the government to infringe the unalienable right of lawful citizens to own firearms.

    2. Hmmm, also interesting…we can assume those persons working for the govt would still have access to high powered weapons, even if the civilians did not, in the case of a tyrannical govt situation.

      Would the U.S. every look like the Hong Kong riots or the Yellow Jackets in France…? Maybe? Maybe not?

      Would the elimination of one gun type lead to more chipping away?

      I hate to hear about kids having their insides gutted by a shooter while in school for the purpose of learning…while not a parent myself, I have seen parents who have lost children or adult children and they are not the same person afterwards…

      What’s the middle ground solution to make both sides unhappy with the results and happy at the same time???

  12. Those who wish to challenge the law should form “a regulated militia”. Or a well regulated one. Then they should form a line with their weapons loaded beyond the bullet limits in the law in front of a Cat O Lick church. Facing out, to guard the church, they should sing the national anthem while the police arrest them.
    Their defense in court when they sue as plaintiffs should be offensive claim under 42 USC section 1983 for violation of their First Amend free speech and freedom of religion and Second Amend right to bear arms. An armed bears sould also be a plaintiff along with those who armed the bear.

  13. “The law allows people to have larger magazines but bars citizens from loading more than ten bullets.”

    Ten in the magazine same as the original magazine loadout for an M16 rifle and one in the chamber is ….ELEVEN. Did these low brows bother to check their definitions or just wing it.

    Moot point anyway. Any veteran can switch magazines in less than three seconds if they are very slow. One learns to never fire the last round before the change over, push the magazine retainer button and insert the new one. then keep firing.

    The rate of fire unless they are a BLM/Antifadadadada quality hood from the block makes most of those rounds go everywhere but the intended target and let us not forget turning it sideways to profile for the odd reporters camera in hopes of a movie role.

    Amateurs are amateurs and that court scored 100% in that category.

    1. The original M16 magazine capacity was 20 rounds not 10. In 1969 the M16A1 became the service rifle (not assault rifle) and, among other improvements, changed to a 30 round magazine.

  14. Again, the discourse on gun ownership has one object: to stick the blame for inner-city violence on (disproportionately exurban, small town, and rural) hobbyists. Slum crime is committed by feral young men living in slums (some of whom extend their crimes to the rest of the city). It’s not committed by deplorables who hunt, shoot targets, and collect to amuse themselves.

    You want to quell violence in the slums, build metropolitan police forces, staff them amply, track their performance, and insist they use best practices (which means pro-active work). It has been done. The problem is that black politicians and the rancid public interest bar fancy police officers are getting above themselves by enforcing the law contra strata with a higher social status (which black politicians fancy black have by birth and which gentry liberals fancy they’ve allocated to slum blacks). So, demonstrably effective programs will not be pursued and liberals blather on about Mr. Antonelli’s gun collection.

    It’s plain evil.

    1. The discourse on guns should address two main concerns, both unique to America among developed countries:

      Mass shootings – begin with outlawing high velocity, small caliber weapons and high capacity clips.

      Daily crime i(including murder) involving guns – stiffen ID on purchases, increase sentencing if a gun is used, more vigorous prosecution and penalties for sales of guns without proper ID, uniform federal laws at a higher level.

      1. The discourse on guns should address two main concerns, both unique to America among developed countries:

        Mass shootings – begin with outlawing high velocity, small caliber weapons and high capacity clips.

        Daily crime i(including murder) involving guns – stiffen ID on purchases, increase sentencing if a gun is used, more vigorous prosecution and penalties for sales of guns without proper ID, uniform federal laws at a higher level.

        Wrong on both counts.
        Mass shootings – mostly, although not always, are committed by thugs in the hood, who, by definition do NOT obey the laws.
        Begin with outlawing high velocity, small caliber weapons and high capacity clips.
        Nope, take all of the liberal cities out of the equation, the ones with strict laws on firearms, and the U.S. is safer than most other countries. The answer is to have LESS restrictive firearms laws.
        Every place the laws have been loosened has seen a dramatic DECREASE in crime……funny how those do not obay the law are against getting shot by their victims.

        Daily crime i(including murder) involving guns – stiffen ID on purchases, increase sentencing if a gun is used, more vigorous prosecution and penalties for sales of guns without proper ID, uniform federal laws at a higher level.
        Wrong again. Start executing those who commit such crimes. Do so in a timely manner.
        3 strikes and your DEAD.!
        Then we could stop pumping our kids full of drugs.
        Almost every mass shooter has been on psychotropic drugs. Read u on the side effects of them.

        1. Odds, all American cities have had drastic decreases in crime starting back in the 90’s. Virtually none of the mass shootings over the last several years – from Parkland to El Paso, Dayton, and Sandy Hook had anything to do with “hoods”.

          1. Bythebook, as I have no doubt you already know, but we have a serious mental health crisis in the U.S. this is the biggest factor in mass shootings. Is there something in the water? In the air? Nature vs. Nurture, a little of both is always my answer. Maybe it’s in the food? Some believe its in the vaccines. Sometimes its genetic, sometimes it’s environmental, or it’s more likely than not, it’s both.

          2. Odds, all American cities have had drastic decreases in crime starting back in the 90’s.

            In your imagination only.

  15. Solid use of your time and energy, Jon. Feel proud. Step up hard to protect causes of an epidemic.

    1. One sentence and so many errors.

      No epidemic – the long term trend is DOWN.
      No causation.

      1. 32 thousand dead of gun violence. Causation. They didn’t die from eating from too many chocolate covered raisins. The trend isn’t down enough.

        1. There is no such thing as ‘gun violence’. Guns are inanimate objects. Bloc killings (3 or more at a setting) are spectacular events, but they account for < 3% of the homicides which occur in a typical year. Long guns account for a similar share of homicides each year.

          Short of mass confiscation, gun regulations are going to be a weak vector in influencing the quantum of violent crime in this country. Liberals are completely uninterested in implementing any of the strong vectors. We know why.

          1. Convenient dodge around the suicide question. Skilful (?) pivot back to an NRA talking point of mass confiscations.

            32,000 deaths by gun last year in the States. Not by thought crimes. Not by eating too many peanuts. Not by autoerotiic asphyxiation experiments gone wrong.

            That puts the issue into epidemic territory. Picking apart wording is a useful tactic in trying to lobby to have an issue squashed. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!! There is no such thing as gun violence, guns are inanimate objects!! And other such divide and conquer tactics highlight how the industry has manipulated fear, but don’t do a thing to streamline a solution…

            Unless of course no solution is intended. I’m guessing you’re on that side of the issue?

            Personally I’m all for limiting velocity capacity of projectiles. I know that if the government comes for me it’s a done deal and me and my high powered weaponry are no match.

            1. Paulie
              Are you disputing the facts about 3% of all shooting being done with a rifle ? Do you Really believe the bad guys, drug dealers, Armed robbers, gang bangers ECT are going to turn in their weapons ?
              Do think a determined shooter cannot fire ten rounds in ten seconds then change clips in even less time ? Let’s try a different approach instead of removal of the criminals weapon of choice. Let’s remove the criminal. 10 years NO parole for 1st crime committed with a gun. If the weapon goes off Evan by accident 15 years No parole. If someone is shot 20 years no parole. If a person is permanently injured or does life or death with 2 years for all appeals and challenges. What say you ?

              1. I’d say you’re more than a bit extreme. Maybe even frothing at the mouth a little bit. Certainly not cognizant of the any other approach than what you believe to be true.

              2. Solvermn:

                The restrictions on rifles are primarily for curbing the ability of shooters to kill crowds of people and foster terror among the public. This is a growing problem and previous restrictions on automatics are similar in intent.

                Bad guys and drug dealers, down to the really small timers are able to easily steal or buy handguns because they are everywhere. Supply and demand works in the street just as it does in the market or boardroom and it is not in the public interest that every 16 year old who wants a gun can probably get one.

                I’m fine with increased penalties for crimes committed while the perp is carrying a gun.

                  1. Those crowds killed by mass shooters can be anonymous victims by maniacs or rival gangs or police in the commission of a crime. In any case, a truck (TIA’s comp) has several functions, and one main irreplaceable function (not counting pack mules) which is productive and beneficial. An AR-15’s irreplaceable main function is efficiently killing humans. Other less lethal weapons can and are used for hunting and home protection.

                    1. BTB,

                      It’s been shown the case that even though the mass shootings are tragic in themselves when viewed against other mass killings by Big Pharma, abortions, etc… & other needless deaths as a percentage wise, guns/AR’s are at or near the very bottom.

                      But it’s also been shown about 80% of the shooters were on Big Pharma’s SSRI’s & the other 20% were Islamic Nut Jobs.

                      And you Anti-American slave nut jobs never give any credit to the approx. 3.5 million people saved in the US by have legally owned firearms.

                1. Thanks. We can agree on serious penalty for Any crime committed with the use of a firearm. It is almost without dispute that the only people who will obey any weapons law are honest people. Thus you disarrm honest people leaving them like sheep before wolves. I will FULLY support these laws as soon as police stations remove their bullet proof glass, and steel doors, and the cops too are unarmed. Live long, Praise God and Prosper.

              3. Solvermn:
                I’d reinstate capital punishment for crimes involving a firearm that is discharged for any reason by a perp, accomplice or confederate.

                1. Even George Washington & Patrick Henry & my family’s relatives that were with them?

                  Why are people so willingly, eager to surrender up Title Rights that others fought & died for & to hand down to their heirs to protect?

                  OT: Other Rights… Trump was shut down today by some of those heirs today.

                  The battles to keep Liberty never end, Bio*weapon corona virus

                  Attorney Norm Pattis, Jones vs Trump

                  Trump was talked off the roof today with the help of the WH staffs.


                  1. Oops typo;

                    Trump was talked off the roof today with the help of the WH Legal Staff.

                2. Et al:

                  I thought after the capital punishment delivered to those Nazis for their Bio*weapons/human experiments in WW2 at the Nuremberg trials it was a settled issue. You make/release bio*weapons in the world you get capital punishment.

                  Dr Francis Boyle authored & helped get the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 Law Pass & passed through the UN worldwide. It is the current Law, Rule or strong suggestion….


                  IE: Dr Boyle was against capital punishment so he went with Life in Prison for the guilty, but that’s an aside.

                  What appears of being completely exposed now is that people, “Doctor’s” like Fauci of the NIH, former DDAG Rod Rosenstien’s sister of the CDC, HHS, FDA, Obama’s Administration, etc, etc, etc….
                  were involved with the development of bio*weapons & were delivered to the Chicoms that were also in on the research, building of bio*weapons.

                  It appears to be the same viruses that has been released which is now mutating. (gain of function)

                  Now imagine you are the prosecutor, judge or sitting on the jury.

                  The defendant is accused of attacking someone they believe released a bio*weapon that killed millions & harmed billions of people, but they also had reason to believe the govt’s would do nothing but cover it up.

                  Would you proceeded with that case or kick it to the curb because millions/billions of other people knew much the same?

                  And of Wow! Imagine my vet & my shock, they’ve already cooked up a Vaccine for this virus that’s likely the govt claims they can make it mandatory. lol

                  Same ole crap, different war.

            2. Convenient dodge around the suicide question.

              I’m giving no thought to ‘the suicide question’. People commit suicide for occult reasons, as a rule. Preventing people from so doing is a ministry. Except for talking someone down from a ledge (more the work of people associated with fire and rescue than police), we don’t hire protective services personnel or regulatory inspectors to be ministers.

              About 0.6% of the population of a typical birth cohort will elect to end their lives with a pistol shot. I’m not seeing why we bind up the rest of the population in red tape and have ‘public health officials’ scolding them about their hobbies. (Another 0.6% manages to kill themselves not using firearms). Personal tragedies are not public order problems.

              1. Obviously. There must be an amendment somewhere that addresses the problem. ha.

          2. and mass confiscations would immediately trigger violence if not civil war

            guns are here to stay. grow up boys, and work on causes of violence not tools of it.

            1. Clearly. And any suggestion of even addressing the issue is read as “mass confiscations” by a certain sub group. it’s obvious where the issue stands.

              1. You’re not addressing any issue if you’re chuffering about guns. You want to address violent crime, hire police officers in ample numbers, deploy them optimally, monitor their activities, promote the effective, encourage all to use best practices, and do not write the law so judges can replace punishment with social work. Certain regulations on weapons possession and drug can be helpful as can anti-loitering laws, because they allow stop and frisk.

                You want to address suicide, that’s a task for charities more than any other. You can stop using institutions of state to promote dispositions which in turn generate family disintigration. Liberals are uninterested in the latter and are only interested in the former if it means state-funded job opportunities for counselors and social workers.

                And, of course, the human condition is what it is. There will be an irreducible quantum of street crime and suicide no matter what you do. Original sin is with us always.

            2. Kurtz, technology dictates behavior to a great extent, and whether that behavior is crime, suicide, mental illness, or anger – all eternal and universal – gun technology increases lethality.

              1. Kurtz, technology dictates behavior to a great extent,

                No it doesn’t, but you need to prop up a bad argument and any old a$$-pull will do.

  16. Crazed Democrats strike again. Because yes, thugs and gang members who are already breaking the law by possessing a firearm, are going to limit themselves to ten bullets. What does a Glock 9mm hold, 17 bullets???

    Why would any sane, self-respecting white person continue to vote for Democrats???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Why limit it to whites? I’ve asked the same question about Blacks and Jews. The Blacks are pandered to as evidenced by the recent Biden SC victory supported by Clyburn. One would think the number of Jews in business would lean toward the Republicans.
      This NYC ruling is an incrementalist approach to eliminate the 2A. It’s unconstitutional.

  17. Adopting the death by a thousand cuts used so efficiently by the repugthuglicans and right wing wacko anti-abortion nut cases. Piece by piece. Hopefully the no longer Supreme Court gang of 5 will have better sense on this case. 30 round mag., load 28, 20 round load 18, no jams. Learned that lesson long ago in another century courtesy of Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children.

  18. 2A was designed to protect us against the government. Every attempt by the government to control the citizens infringes on the 2A

    1. We don’t have to be to smart to know what’s likely to happen after a few weeks, a month of this bio*weapon crap, of people locked down, not having a paycheck, businesses going BK, they can’t get their China dope, families breaking up, panic, etc….

      I hope everyone looks around at where they’re at, were not in Kansas any more.

Comments are closed.