Note: For the most recent news on this bill, see Further Update on Connecticut SB 1094
Earlier this month, we reported on a gun control bill that had been introduced into the Connecticut Judiciary Committee, that if passed, would make thousands of law abiding Gun Enthusiasts living in Connecticut, criminals, if they did not turn-in to authorities, their previously legal gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. This bill, which is yet another knee jerk reaction to the January shooting in Arizona that killed six people, follows the ever present liberal agenda that wants to lead us to an outright ban on gun ownership across America.
On March 23, 2011, the Connecticut Judiciary Committee held a hearing that encouraged comments from any persons interested in the pending gun control bills now proposed. There was an overwhelming amount of testimony opposing SB 1094 presented to the committee. Today, I watched a replay of some of that testimony that went before the Connecticut Judiciary Committee last week and it is obvious that there is little support for this bill among the citizenry. All of the testimony I saw was from antagonists encouraging rejection of the bill. But the committee now has until April 15th to decide if the bill should progress further, and send it to the floor for debate and vote. Keep in mind that liberal minded legislators are rarely swayed by compelling common sense testimony from the other side.
One of the comments proffered by a senator on the committee referred to some contradictory email that he had received on this bill. He noted that some of the emails suggested that the bill should be rejected on the notion that it takes little time to change out a spent magazine with a fully loaded magazine, thereby nullifying the 10 round restriction. Other email argued that having a larger magazine was important so that the shooter would not be required to spend the time it takes to reload with another magazine. He could not understand how or if both could be true, or if they cancel each other out. The truth is, both arguments have merit but are totally dependent on the context of the shooting.
Take for example, someone who is contemplating committing a criminal act using a handgun. His intent is likely to provide himself with as much ammunition as he (or she) feels he may need to complete the criminal act. If he is limited to using only ten round magazines, he will likely have available to him, as many magazines as it will take to keep himself loaded for as long as he needs. Since dropping a spent magazine and reloading a gun with another full magazine can take less than a second in experienced hands, he will simply reload as much as needed to complete his task. But the irony here is that, if someone is intent on committing a criminal act with a hand gun, that person is highly unlikely to be concerned with the legality of the magazine he possesses. Most likely, he is going to find large, illegal magazines to keep his gun loaded as much as possible. The legality of the magazine he possesses is going to be of no consequence to him, since the overall violent act will, no doubt, be more egregious than the magazine offense.
On the other hand, if someone – some law abiding citizen, finds himself in a self defense situation, that person’s ability to defend himself is going to depend on the gun that he is able to get his hands on. If that law abiding citizen is only able to grab his hand gun that has a “legal” 10 round magazine, his ability to successfully defend his life is going to depend on those ten rounds available to him. Even if he is able to have at his disposal, more magazines, he is going to have to take the time to drop the spent magazine and reload the gun with another. Most average citizens in a panic situation such as this are not so skillful as to be able to reload in under one second. The time it takes to reload his gun, may cost him his life.
Both of the above scenarios are uncommon instances of gun use but no less germane to the argument against limiting the size of ammunition magazines. What is more common is the daily use of guns by sportsmen, target shooters and weekend plinkers who enjoy recreational target shooting or even practice shooting to make themselves better qualified shooters. Most hand guns these days come equipped with magazines that hold more than ten rounds, by design. Most recreational shooters are accustomed to shooting larger magazines. Many competition shooters rely on larger magazines to be competitive in their sport of choice. Limiting magazine size relegates these recreational shooters to cumbersome reloading of many more magazines than should be necessary. The competition shooters suddenly become less competitive. Both classes of shooters will have to spend more money on additional magazines just to keep enough ammunition available for their immediate use.
Let’s face it. The various legislative bills currently being considered in State Legislatures around the Country, and in Congress, are no more than knee jerk reactions attempting to satisfy liberal’s appetites for more gun control in the wake of the Arizona shooting incident. Liberal anti-gun extremists will not sit by and allow an opportunity, borne out of the recent horrific action of a crazed lunatic with a gun, slip through their fingers and be wasted. Their need to capitalize on a trajedy overwhelms them, so they ramp up the drum beat. They are compelled to try and take advantage of the deaths of six innocent people, including a federal judge, and the shooting of a member of Congress, to advance their liberal agenda. It is despicable.
Their feeble use of the flimsiest of excuses to try to limit the size of gun magazines is simply another notch they are attempting to carve out of the Second Amendment. It is incumbent on each of us to contact our representative(s) and urge them to reject these gun control bills.