One more thing to my confiscation rant below:
One of the folks who is rooting for the prosecution of every gun owner in the state who either failed to comply, or who tried to comply but missed the deadline, is suggesting that they use the background check database to find out who bought an assault weapon, cross reference that to the folks who didn’t register an assault weapon, and then go pay those folks a visit.
Once again, the absolute ignorance of these people when it comes to guns and existing laws is just jaw-dropping. Also, they have already contradicted the arguments against the background check system, in that it would be used as a de facto registry – that didn’t take long. But I’m just a paranoid nut.
Allow me to lay a little bit of learning on you, folks…
The background check database is going to tell you three things:
1. Who applied for a gun purchase;
2. Whether the gun was a long gun or a pistol;
3. Whether they were approved to purchase the weapon or not.
What it is NOT going to tell you is the following:
1. If the gun was actually purchased after approval (it isn’t entirely unheard of that a guy changes his mind after approval and doesn’t buy the gun);
2. If the gun was a scary black gun or one of the friendly wooden-stocked types, identical in every way to the scary gun, but without the scary looking features like the shoulder thingy that goes up.
3. If the person who bought the gun still owns said gun. Contrary to popular belief, it is totally legal for a man to sell his own legally owned property without asking the state’s permission.
So let’s just pretend that the background check database actually has the information that you need (it doesn’t) and allows you to proceed (it won’t). Let’s pretend that we go knocking door to door. Let’s say we knock on the door of a man who is actually in possession of one of these horrifying black rifles, with the muzzle thingy and the high capacity clips and such, who hasn’t registered it and has technically committed a felony. So what do you expect him to do if the cops show up at his door? Admit to it? Fuck no, he’s not going to admit to it.
Officer: “Sir, are you still in possession of this scary black militaristic-style death machine?”
Less smart, more brave man:
Officer: “Sir, are you still in possession of the same type of rifle that killed 30 kids at Newtown, and is surely lusting for the blood of children, itself?”
Homeowner: “None of your goddamned business?”
Super brave, playing with fire guy:
Officer: “Sir, are you in possession of this devil-incarnate piece of machinery with its own evil intent and lust for the souls of the innocent?”
Homeowner: “Nope. Lost it 6 years ago in a tragic boating accident. A shame, really. I loved that gun, and having it would have given me the opportunity to participate in your super-duper awesome registry thingy that is obviously the solution to all problems associated with human on human violence since the dawn of time!”
Total Idiot (and the only one of the above that face any legal action whatsoever):
Officer: “Sir, are you in possession of this accessorized doom vessel with the soul of the blackest demon and the devil himself?”
Homeowner: “Yes, I have it right here in my house.”
Because what the police are NOT going to be able to do is get a warrant to search any home from the fact that the homeowner once did a background check to buy a gun. So they’re going to have to be invited in to search. Also, keep in mind that the illegal weapon has to be in the house that they are searching in order to find it. I know it’s tough to imagine, but there are ways to store guns not inside of your home. SO without the cooperation of a man that they are attempting to make a felon, they are helpless to do anything about this.
…they wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights and consider that having participated in a background check is reason enough to search a home, and find a judge willing to issue a warrant on those grounds. Which would prove my point about unenforceable laws – they result in increasing spirals of brutality and game-changing on the part of law enforcement.
Face it, Connecticut, you screwed up. You issued an order that you had plenty of historical precedent to believe would not be followed. You bluffed. The people of Connecticut called your bluff. Your move. Do you do the right thing and back off, telling your people that you got the message and leave it alone?
Or, do you double down, go full authoritarian, and in the process make a fool of yourself and increase the very violence that you putatively created the law to eliminate?