“The General Assembly’s powerful Judiciary Committee next week will return to the controversial issue of gun safety, when it considers legislation that would force all gun owners to lock their weapons.”
“Current law mandates that gun owners secure loaded weapons in homes where there are minors or people ineligible to possess weapons.”
Lock, secure? It’s all semantics. They mean the same thing. So the future charge will be that the firearm was secured but not locked? or locked, but not secured? In a safe but without a trigger guard? Next will come the even more draconian mandates that were shot down in DC by Heller; you can have a working firearm in your home but you can’t carry it in your home, it can’t be in working order, but if so it must be disassembled.
That the Assembly will revisit, as you say, “the controversial issue of gun safety”, is a joke. I am in the business of gun safety. I am a firearms instructor. I make it my business to teach proper firearms handling and safety when using firearms. There are over 170,000 current permit holders in CT. A statistically insignificant number of those are out there committing crimes, and for the most part they crimes incidental to the use of a firearm. None of them are “children”. None of them are mentally disabled or incapable. Were that the case, none of them would have received their permits.
The new provision of this plan would turn the idea of innocent until proven guilty on it’s head. As it stands now a simple accusation is enough to cause one to lose rights and property.
Nothing in the legislature’s gun control quiver even remotely touches “gun safety”, you know it, and I know it.
“The General Assembly’s powerful Judiciary Committee next week will return to the controversial issue of gun safety, when it considers legislation that would force all gun owners to lock their weapons.”
“Current law mandates that gun owners secure loaded weapons in homes where there are minors or people ineligible to possess weapons.”
Lock, secure? It’s all semantics. They mean the same thing. So the future charge will be that the firearm was secured but not locked? or locked, but not secured? In a safe but without a trigger guard? Next will come the even more draconian mandates that were shot down in DC by Heller; you can have a working firearm in your home but you can’t carry it in your home, it can’t be in working order, but if so it must be disassembled.
That the Assembly will revisit, as you say, “the controversial issue of gun safety”, is a joke. I am in the business of gun safety. I am a firearms instructor. I make it my business to teach proper firearms handling and safety when using firearms. There are over 170,000 current permit holders in CT. A statistically insignificant number of those are out there committing crimes, and for the most part they crimes incidental to the use of a firearm. None of them are “children”. None of them are mentally disabled or incapable. Were that the case, none of them would have received their permits.
The new provision of this plan would turn the idea of innocent until proven guilty on it’s head. As it stands now a simple accusation is enough to cause one to lose rights and property.
Nothing in the legislature’s gun control quiver even remotely touches “gun safety”, you know it, and I know it.