Disarming And Dangerous by Doug Wrenn

Disarming And Dangerous

By Doug Wrenn

October 17, 2007

Concerned about the apparent rise of shootings in our urban areas, Gov. Rell, Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez, and several other of the state's mayors met some time back to brainstorm on curbing the violence. By news reports that I read at that time, the leaders seemed to be focusing more on the inanimate objects (guns) and less on the errant humans (the thugs who abuse guns), a common flaw often found in anti-gun liberals who tend to be propelled by emotion instead of logic.

Even when these misguided do-gooders did look more at errant humans and less at the inanimate objects, they seemed to skip over such more substantive matters as getting tougher with the bad guys by increased enforcement of already existing laws, turning more gun crimes over to the tougher federal courts and seeing that process through from the cop on the street to the prosecutor in the court, and to the judge on the bench. They seemed neither aware nor interested in studies by former Yale Professor John Lott, author of the book, "More Guns, Less Crime," which show that areas with a more armed citizenry are less prone to violent crime and visa versa. They also seemed equally disinterested in strengthening the ever endangered liberties of the good guys with guns, law-abiding, permit holders, only a fraction of whom, if any, ever commit a crime, and the same people who are part of the roughly two million person average who nationally protects themselves and/or innocent third parties from violent crimes by owning a firearm, and in most such cases, without having to actually fire a shot. As I will soon illustrate, it was for sound reason that our forefathers articulated our inalienable 2nd Amendment rights, not just to protect us from violent criminals, but also as a check and balance against out of control government, be it foreign, or domestic, despotic or inept.

Our misguided leftist do-gooders, in accordance with their agenda, instead took umbrage against states with more lax gun laws, and saw those states as the enemy, as guns from those states were perceived (or falsely and/or erroneously blamed for) appearing up here in God's forgotten little liberal acre in increasing numbers. Unable to take any action against these states, the lefties with a mission at "Do-Gooder, Inc." instead supposedly focused more on straw man sales, in which a permit holder obtains a gun and sells it to criminal, or a non-permit holder, an illegal act in and of itself, and just one of the often disregarded 20,000 or so gun laws already on the books nationwide, not that any number would ever satisfy those of the same mindset as US Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) or so-called celebrity, Rosie O'Donnell, who don't want us little people to be able to protect ourselves, as long as they can either be armed or have armed body guards on the payroll.

The straw man obsession soon went awry. A June 1st, 2007 op-ed in the Waterbury Republican American gave light to a little known story that you did not otherwise see or hear reported in the so-called mainstream media, and that was no coincidence. After the state's urban mayors and police chiefs testified to a state legislative committee that most gun violence stemmed from straw buyer sales, a Meriden small arms manufacturer named S. Wayne Alvarez was rightfully skeptical. After doing some patriotic, grass roots investigating, Mr. Alvarez uncovered that according to a State Police Sergeant within the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, "there is no centralized office where these statistics are reported or maintained." (Bravo, Mr. Alvarez!) In March, the Office of Legislative Research (OLR) called the bluff and asked the police chiefs of Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford to produce their statistics. None of the three chiefs responded. Oops! As long as we are focusing on gun laws here, how about pursuing perjury charges against those who may have given false testimony to the state legislature regarding this gun issue, false testimony that not only later became law, in part based on these empty claims, but also further restricted the God (not government) given rights of law-abiding gun owners?

The end result of this travesty was that none of dishonored public officials of this once apparently covert but since exposed agenda of deception and tyranny were ever investigated or charged, and the bill in question, now law, creates two penalties, an infraction and a felony respectively for the first and second offenses, for any gunowner who fails to report the loss or theft of a firearm within 72 hours of when he knew or "should have" known the gun became missing. Who determines when a gunowner "should have" known a gun went missing, and by what standard? These legal questions were never answered, and they should have been. Judiciary Co-Chairman, Rep. Mike "Iron Curtain" Lawlor (D-East Haven) is a listed co-sponsor of this bill, which went through his committee. Lawlor is himself a former prosecutor. The fact that such a legislative flaw missed supposedly missed the eye of this lawyer and lawmaker could suggest that he is either inept or biased, but on that matter, I'll let you decide. This law can potentially and quickly make felons (by conveniently skipping the middle "misdemeanor" category) out of any gunowner who goes away on business or on vacation for a week or two, or God forbid, is in a hospital as a patient, and for the purpose of targeting a statewide crisis of straw purchases now proven to be non-existent. Soon after the bill became law, Rep. William Tong (D-Stamford) either ignorantly or deceptively praised the bill in a radio news interview as being a substantive response to the already refuted straw data scheme, hatched by gaggle of liberals, liars and lemmings, all apparently immune from the rule of law. Include in that group, Gov. Rell, who had the final say and nevertheless signed the bill into law. How quickly we forget. Just a couple months or so back, I recall reading an op-ed in the New Haven Register, which also praised the law, claiming that gunowners had 72 hours to report gun losses or thefts, without mentioning the "should have" codicil. Indeed, Hitler's Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, was ingenious in his realization and famous quote that a lie told often enough soon becomes truth. And so this drivel-laden fantasy fuel, born of fear and blind to facts, is further shoveled into the ever-burning furnace of anti-gun fire by the misguided and ignorant zealots from the anti-gun movement, who maintain the farce.

On a more upbeat note, bravo also to Robert Crook, editor of Hook And Bullet, the magazine of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen. In the September, 2007 issue, Mr. Crook sheds some more light on this law, which emanated from SB 938, originally proposed by Democrat Senators Looney (appropriately) and Harp, both representing New Haven, and in the case of Senator Harp, being a proponent of giving federally funded home heating oil to illegal immigrants. (Somebody seems to have a gross misconception about good guys and bad guys!) Crook does specifically address the "should have known codicil." He also cites that while similar laws do exist in Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Ohio (hardly zealous bastions of 2nd Amendment Rights advocacy), those states do give specific timeframes and without the "should have known" addition. In California, also not exactly a caldron of conservatism, a similar bill that did contain the "should have known" codicil was vetoed because of the ambiguity.

Crook also cites in his article that legislators so concerned about alleged gun trafficking were not concerned enough to fund a State Police Gun Trafficking Task Force for 2-3 years. As Crook points out, without a permit, guns cannot be legally purchased. Criminals are legally banned from obtaining permits in most cases, such as felonies and many misdemeanors. Handguns (most often used in crimes) must also be legally purchased by a licensed firearms dealer. Without naming Alvarez, Crook also substantiates his investigative findings by reporting that the state's municipal police chiefs have cited that roughly 50% of the state's guns come from out of state, yet no law enforcement authority has yet been able to provide documentation supporting that claim for three years. In the case of so-called "straw sellers," those with permits can have their permits suspended or revoked by the Commissioner of Public Safety. Crook also suggests that both covert and overt investigations conducted by the State Police Gun Trafficking Task Force could also address straw purchases of long guns as well administrative permit revocations for handguns if the task force was funded. An amendment calling for the funding the task force was defeated by a vote of 65-84, naturally. Our legislature and our governor have no interest in targeting criminals, despite their bluster. As their sheer hypocrisy demonstrates, it is gun owners who they deem as the enemy, and who are and will apparently continue to be in their crosshairs, while our state's true armed predators continue to enjoy their violent and destructive freedom and rampages under the umbrella of protection provided by the gleefully collaborating useful idiots of liberal naivety.

Despite its once open honesty with Mr. Alvarez, the State Police Special License and Firearms Unit has since had its reputation stained, due to errant troopers with an agenda of their own. Surprisingly, an op-ed on the October 15th edition of Courant.com, entitled "Needless Gun Permit Delays," the normally far left-of-center folks at The Hartford Courant are actually defending the rights of the state's lawful gun owners and permit applicants. The piece decries the needless denials and delays of permit applicants. This systemic apathy within the unit has now been attributed to a 400 case backlog. A federal lawsuit against the unit was initiated by M. Peter Kruck, the former Secretary of the State Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. Mr. Kruck is now a "former" secretary of that board since his fellow board members demoted him. The board is also now refusing to hear any appeals of denied or delayed permits pending an opinion from Attorney General Blumenthal. Another bravo goes out to Mr. Kruck for his bravery and integrity. Sadly, he is now facing the wrath of his actions. Yes, fellow patriots, as the saying goes, "No good deed goes unpunished." For whatever the reason of the problem, and perhaps in part, that may also well be a matter of diminished funding, Public Safety Commissioner John Danaher (in response to the initiated lawsuit) has looked into the matter and claims that his troopers are now addressing the problem. Commissioner Danaher was recently appointed after a released report of widespread corruption and malfeasances within the ranks of the State Police. It is equally plausible that at least part of the problem might also be apathy and/or agenda from troopers assigned to that unit, or eroded morale from the recent overall and highly publicized beating the department has received due to the criminal exploits of many, but never-the-less, a minority of bad apples within the State Police, and their supervisors, who for whatever reason, did not respond to the reports of these incidents effectively, if at all.

The Courant op-ed piece speculates that the disgruntled troopers assigned to the firearms unit are impeding the process in response to the lack of gun control laws and are presumably attempting to "limit the proliferation of guns in Connecticut." While earlier in the piece, the Courant does give credit to law-abiding gunowners, which it claims are mostly security professionals (doubtful), it still lends credence to the false, if not grossly exaggerated crisis of "straw gun sales" in Connecticut from out of state. (Goebbels would be proud!) The author, however, is redeemed by the final paragraph, "But foot-dragging on gun permits for people who want to act responsibly is not the smartest way to fight terrorism or violent crime." OK, a half of a "bravo" goes to the Courant as well.

The Courant.com piece nailed it squarely on the head when it supported the rights of gun owners, especially given the current times. Not only do we need to be concerned with rising violent crime and terrorism, as well as widespread and practically unchecked illegal immigration, but also the ongoing efforts of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Tri-lateral Commission, and many members of our federal government in both the Legislative and Executive Branches, and from both sides of the political aisle, of creating a North American Union with Mexico and Canada, and erasing our borders and our sovereignty by 2010. Current NAFTA tribunals in place are already positioned to usurp our Congress, state legislatures and even our state and federal courts, including the US Supreme Court. This regional shadow government will only come to light from its protective naysayers once we have lost this crucial battle, and are already traveling on NAFTA highways, saluting a "North American flag" (already designed) and exchanging the "Amero" for currency instead of the failing US dollar. It does not take too much speculation to grasp that our documented 2nd Amendment rights will soon be challenged and potentially eliminated as well. It's all about the power, and who controls it.

Concerned patriots now, more than ever, need to cling tightly to their cherished but endangered pistolas and be leery of posturing politicians, and even their puppet police chiefs. President Reagan was indeed correct when he once quipped that the scariest words ever uttered are, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Disarmed citizens in Canada, England and Australia were recently told the same thing, just before they were disarmed. So were countless once free citizens of former oppressive government regimes in history. For that matter, so were the remaining citizens of New Orleans during the catastrophic Hurricane Katrina fiasco. Many of those once law-abiding citizens instantly became vulnerable, and later, slain sheep once they obediently handed their guns over to cops who never returned, even after the murderous and looting roving gangs later appeared. Once the waters receded, order was restored, and the personified pinnacle of cowardly incompetence, himself, Mayor Ray Nagin, finally came out of hiding, the City of New Orleans came up short for an answer to the former gun owners as to where many of their confiscated guns were located, or who had them. Closer to home, Connecticut's state government still refuses to pass a real 3 strikes law, despite a recent and barbaric atrocity that occurred in Cheshire, and a "serial rapist" just being released from prison to live in Southbury, and in both cases, a still flawed parole system was the accomplice. Some bad guys will always get the guns. Other bad guys will get elected or appointed to high office, and then try to make sure that nobody but other bad guys keep the guns. Just like with the infamous gangster, Al Capone, both types of predators utilize a smile and/or a gun to ply their sordid trade in our state. As another sage saying goes, "Abe Lincoln made all men free, but (fellow Nutmegger) Sam Colt made them all equal." I can't help but wonder if the famous Colt Revolver's father saw and realized much more, even then, than what we give him credit for now.

And that's all the more reason for the rest of us to keep our radar up and our powder dry, especially here, in this socialist state of confusion and chaos, aptly dubbed, "Corrupticut."

Doug Wrenn