Recall Connecticut’s recently passed extensive gun ban law, a bill passed in the emotional aftermath of the Newtown shootings. Essentially, it banned firearms the State’s government has defined as “assault” weapons.
Last Monday, the legislature “tweaked” that bill to “clear up confusion;” Governor Dannel Malloy (D) is expected to sign it. One of the tweaks cleared up confusion surrounding the legal possession of these weapons that had been on order before the original legislation was signed into law but not received until after enactment. Such firearms can now be legally possessed.
It’s another tweak that’s of interest here, though: this one expanded the list of those who can legally acquire these “assault” weapons, now that the gun ban law has been enacted:
- sworn and certified officers at the department of motor vehicles
- the chief state’s attorney office
- the department of energy and environmental protection
- some constables with police certification
Additionally, the tweak
- exempts [the above] officers from the certificate requirement for long gun ownership
- allows them to [retain their “assault”] weapons and large capacity magazines after their service ends by registering them.
Notice that: the citizenry are being denied the ability to possess weapons adequate for their own purposes (an inalienable right and a right acknowledged by the 2nd Amendment), but a broadened list of government officials is granted the ability to possess “assault” weapons.
State Senator Joe Markley (R) is on the right track, but he was a lone voice in the Connecticut wilderness:
I think if we acknowledge that we are putting law enforcement officers at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves [thus, the allowed expansion of weapons possessions], I think we have to acknowledge that we’re putting homeowners at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves.
Now why would a government seek to disarm the citizenry while expanding its own arsenal?