News @lemmy.world MicroWave @lemmy.world 1 yr. ago

Connecticut enacts its most sweeping gun control law since the Sandy Hook shooting

apnews.com Connecticut enacts its most sweeping gun control law since the Sandy Hook shooting

Connecticut’s most wide-ranging gun control measure since the 2013 law enacted after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is taking effect.

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.

43 comments

I am a gun guy and I feel like these are fine restrictions. There is no need to open carry, and 3 handguns in a month is strange.
- I instantly distrust anyone I see open carrying in public. Hunting or on the farm? Sure, makes sense. In the grocery store...ehhh.
  
  The weekend after it became legal here I saw a guy in cut off jean shorts+beater tank with a 22LR Beretta Neo in a drop leg holster at a local diner. I can only assume he's an elite operator.
  
  The only people who carry in public are cowards. It is that simple.
  
  They are people who are too scared to venture out in public without a gun, and those are the people most likely to use them when unnecessary.
- Permanently Deleted
  
  It will slow down straw purchases which will mean fewer illegal guns traipsing about.
- Well you only need one for a mass shooting, and carry bans aren't going to stop you if you're about to fucking murder a bunch of innocent strangers, so what problem is this solving exactly?
  
  It's not. In the view of many, civilian gun ownership is A Problem To Be Solved. Such people do not draw a distinction between law-abiding gun owners who keep their guns secure and threaten nobody, and violent criminals and psychopaths who frequently kill people. Thus, with that view, any law that restricts gun ownership or reduces the number of guns in society is progress.
  
  In reality, this law will do absolutely nothing for public safety. It will make the lives of gun owners harder, while the criminals and psychos will ignore this law just as they do every other law.
  
  The problem of losers with tiny dicks walking around with their gun out scaring people. It's a breach of peace.
- I wonder if this is some of the rationale:
  
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235223000181
- 3 guns in 6 months/ a year is strange. How can you not foresee, within a year time, that you'd need a gun, for any purpose?
  
  Ehh while perhaps not popular amongst this crowd there's also collectors. I've bought and traded more than 3 in that timespan as collectibles/trade options for a sale or some such. Not everything is for nefarious reasons.
This law is going to be struck down as unconstitutional almost immediately.

If they're going to ban open carry, they need to remove all fees and procedures (prints, etc) for obtaining a concealed carry permit. Otherwise, it only serves to disenfranchise poorer people.
- Odd that it could be struck down as unconstitutional since CT banned open carry when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were passed.
  
  Edit: It was actually Rhode Island that did although Connecticut did pass gun control measures in the early 1800s.
  
  The right to bear arms for self defense is in enshrined in the Connecticut Constitution, with no explicit or implied exceptions.
  
  The US Supreme Court ruled last year, that, quote, "Americans have a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public places, arguing that a century-old New York law requiring a 'proper cause' to carry a gun outside of the home is a violation of Second Amendment rights."
  
  That case they ruled on is from when New York tried to do the same thing (setting a precedent).
  
  The law is in outright defiance of the latest Supreme Court interpretation, and the Connecticut Constitution.
- Aren't poorer people the ones who do more crime?
  
  Not sure. How many poor people were working in the financial sector when the banks misrepresented the value of mortgage backed securities and sold them to pension funds?
  
  “Crimes” of despair added in maybe, maybe not. Things are criminalized that enough money means not really (epstein’s island), privacy to snort/smoke/inject drugs of choice, solicit sexual services; bribes, embezzlement, tax evasion; and not all crimes are equal, nor should be criminal.
- Dumb take, clearly you don't know law. The bill was written to comply with modern Supreme Court interpretations.
Permanently Deleted
- Straw purchasers feeding to the black market.
Permanently Deleted
I'm confused. Don't these restrictions do nothing to stop mass shootings? Open carry is for intimidation. Most mass shooters don't use handguns, they use rifles.

So what are these restrictions for?
- Firearm crimes are most commonly committed with handguns. Banning open carry opens up a "See something,, say something" attitude if you see someone with a gun.
  
  I don't know that banning open carry is necessarily a good idea, but banning the sale of more than 3 handguns in 30 days sounds reasonable.
  
  3/month will do good to reduce straw purchases, but will unfortunately hose collectors
- Maybe testing the waters for some real legislation?
  
  Yeah, it says so much about America that this is “sweeping legislation.” It says so much more about America that this will be challenged and likely overturned.
- Feelings. It's just interest balancing garbage.

You've viewed 43 comments.