Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law
So in the summer of 1994, lawmakers hustled through a gun control bill in a special session. They hoped to curb shootings by requiring people to get a purchasing license before buying a handgun. The state would issue these permits to people who passed a background check and a gun safety training course.
At the time, private citizens could freely buy and sell guns secondhand, even to those with criminal records. Connecticut’s law sought to regulate that market. Even private handgun sales would have to be reported to the state, and buyers would need to have a permit.
Critics scoffed at the plan. They argued that a permit system would hassle lawful citizens, while crooks would still get guns on the black market. If the problem was criminals with guns, why not clean up crime instead of restricting guns?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/12/gun-killings-fell-by-40-percent-after-connecticut-passed-this-law/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Any comment?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)spam has returned after a break.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Anything you want to discuss?
samsingh
(17,599 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Glad Connecticut has kept up with the pace.
Ah, the Washington Post, where even a cub reporter has a job-for-life grinding out anti-gun agitprop.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)If you post enough like this it tends to look like you are spamming a group.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=21&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=22&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=23&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=24&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=25&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=26&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=27&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=28&sort=author
I have no problems with sensible gun legislation. It is the feel good crap that they keep trying to pass, I am against. Curious on what you are for as far as gun rights since you do not post any comments.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Crime dropped because the police and the courts started putting the gang leaders and gang members in jail for long sentences. That solved the problem.
Under Federal and CT law, any purchase of a new firearm required a 2 week wait for a background check before the purchaser could bring the firearm home. The permit only allowed the owner to carry a handgun.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)There are no waiting periods anymore since all purchases require a permit. If you get the CCW, required to transport a pistol to the range- even in trunk of car, you can buy either rifles or handguns, no waiting period.
The handgun eligibility permit discussed in the article allowed purchases for up to 5 years. Until 2013, rifles did not require a permit to buy but were subject to the waiting period.
What makes this Constitutional is the permit was only applicable to purchases and was open to anyone that took a safety course and can pass a background check. Unlike some unconstitutional schemes proposed, you do not require a permit to OWN a firearm and it cannot be taken from you without due process.
Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #10)
Shamash This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The 1994 AWB ban brought the NICS instant check at the national level. The CT 1994 law requirement in CT to get a pistol permit to purchase a handgun. No pistol permit, you don't get to buy a handgun. As of April 2013, CT extended that to all rifles and shotguns. No pistol permit, no long gun permit, you don't get to buy a firearm.
So you are wrong, in CT you DO require a permit to buy a firearm. For a handgun, it's about $200 for the town permit, the state permit and the pistol permit course and at least 2 months.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Because I'm not. And I actually live here and have a CCW.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)so "you do not require a permit to OWN a firearm" is wrong if you did not already own a firearm prior to April 2013.
Since then a gun owner must have a a handgun permit, which also covers long guns and the purchase of ammo, a long gun permit, which allows the the purchase of ammo and long guns, but not handguns. A permit is also required to buy ammo if one does not have a handgun or long gun permit.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Essentially renting the gun, though you would cover all maintenance. Failure to renew the license would result in confiscation.
That is not the law in CT, and in fact is unconstitutional. You only need a permit to buy a gun. When the permit expires, and you bought a gun, you still own the gun. I.E. - you do not require a permit to OWN a gun.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)While all of our Constitutional amendments have certain limitations, I doubt the Framers intended citizens to have to wait months to exercise a right.
I have no objection to the background check, but requiring people to go through the process to get a permit, which costs roughly $200 for town fees, state fees and the cost of the pistol permit class and a several month wait to buy a gun is a burden on those who are living paycheck to paycheck.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)But the cost of buying a firearm is even higher. In addition, the eligibility certificate lasts for 5 years, so there is plenty of time to save up the money.
I will say Conn just has this way of making everything burdensome and overpriced. To get my 8x12 shed, I had to certify that the design was rated for 110 MPH winds (cert costs extra $75), use tie downs at all 4 corners, and pay a $65 fee just to locate it for zoning. Never mind that sheds sitting on bricks don't fly away in hurricanes... I'd know from my childhood.
Ideally, I'd like to see the permit cost reduced significantly for those making under some logical income level. It would also help if the state taught the safety classes for a lot cheaper. I don't worry much about the 2-3 month wait. You waited 18 years to actually be able to legally own one, sometimes 21 years. The process does tend to flush out those who don't really want the responsibility.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Gun deaths dropped more on average in the US than they did in Connecticut. By your correlation automatically equals causation logic, we would have been better off not passing the law since the law caused gun deaths to fall slower than the national average.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Seems the OP will not post or respond to have a real discussion. Too bad 
packman
(16,296 posts)I applaud ANY attempt to rein in the senseless selling, trading, and /or trafficking in guns. I just wish Conn. had gone the full Monty and outlawed any type of gun transfer. If you bought it, it is yours and yours alone. Require gun shops to have a buy-back policy or turn-in at police stations and give them a state tax credit.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
packman
(16,296 posts)O.K. - that is not what I said, read my post. Every citizen can bear arms as long as he is the keeper and sole owner of that arms. If he wants to get rid of his gun , turn it in for a refund at a gun shop or to the police for a possible tax credit. However, he/she should not be allowed to trade in guns or sell it to a second party so that it falls into another's hands.
CONN. BEING INVADED BY CANADIANS- grab your gun and report to the nearest Waffle House.
Shamash
(597 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)and you knew what I meant- rather snarky.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Shamash
(597 posts)It sounds like you are saying you don't want a person who owns a gun to be able to sell it to anyone else. If a person is legally allowed to possess something, then there are all kinds of legal issues if the government is going to step in and tell them they cannot sell it to anyone else. It does not matter if they are the original owner or the hundredth owner.
Now, if the person wants to turn it in or sell it to a buyback program, I have no problem with that.
If you want to edit or add a comment to clarifies what you meant or put it all in one place, that would help.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Oh right, he ALSO has a right to own a gun per state Constitution.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)The rifle has been passed down from one generation to the next.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
russ1943
(618 posts)Gundeaths since the law in Connecticut took effect in 1995, declined from 255 in 1995 to 161 in 2013.That’s about a 36% decrease. Nationally there were 35,957 gundeaths in 1995 and 33,636 in 2013. That’s about a 6% decrease. The statement that Gun deaths dropped MORE on average in the US than they did in Connecticut as Travis does in Post # 7 is,I believe, a serious distortion of fact. Yes the decrease of 2,321 gundeaths for the US is more than Connecticut’s 94 but there’s no way that can honestly or fairly be described as;
“Gun deaths dropped more on average in the US than they did in Connecticut”.
See WISQARS http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)"Gundeaths dropped more in Connecticut than they did nationally."
Check out the Pew graph in post #7 -- it reflects what every single national crime graph I've seen depicts. (Which is that nationally, all forms of violence are roughly 1/2 of what they were in '93)
What a surprise that only the CDC finds differently! Weren't they the organization that was busted COLD lying to Congress by falsifying a citation to back up a bogus "gun control" claim? Yes......they were!
But of course their taxpayer-funded research was cut off because of the eebil, eebil gunz lobby.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The number of gun suicides in Australia dropped 65 percent after the National Firearms Agreement, which basically made the gun laws more uniform across the states and banned some long guns. For the most part, the number of gun owners remained about the same. Problem is, the suicide rate didn't drop because the number of suicide by other means made up the difference. Why the big switch from guns to ropes? Researchers have no clue why. The same thing might have happened in Connecticut. Since, on national average, suicides are 2/3 of gun deaths (I don't have specifics of CT. I do know the ratio in Wyoming is much higher) it could be the following:
more rope deaths, no lives saved
better suicide prevention, lives saved
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Maybe it's their cutting edge technology, but Japan outguns the U.S. in suicides without using guns.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)But who should be surprised? Typically The Controllers point to "gun control" measure X, adopted some time post 1993, and then point to the dramatic drop in gun violence that occurred following the adoption of measure X. Of course they don't tell the readership that gun violence started dropping dramatically nationally around '93 --- leading readers to believe that there is an "obvious" cause and effect relationship between the new measure and the crime rate. Hence the title of the Pew article linked in post #7 which includes the words 'public unaware'.
Well no kidding people are unaware of the dramatic nationwide drop in all violent crime --- The Controllers have treated them like mushrooms.*
* Kept them in the dark and fed them sh*t
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)At least a few people on this forum can think for themselves
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Isn't it interesting how w/regard to all issues other than "gun control" The Controllers can call out others when they employ logical fallacies, but then turn around and employ the most obvious ones themselves? The fallacies that high school students learn about in week #1 of Intro. to Statistics and Basic Logic?!
Shamash
(597 posts)now that Ellisonz and Secular are becoming active again, the GCRA group now has more posting admins than posting members. It's like a clique of high school girls deciding who is allowed to hang out with them.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)some of those three just come over here to poke at us and try and get hides. It is truly a sad thing. At least two of the three hosts over there have asked Skinner to remove this group as they seem to be so afraid of any opposing view. Their group is a consolation prize for Skinner not removing this one.
