Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
dislike Cuomo!
Joined
·
4,995 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The hearing tomorrow is not bill specific for us over here in CT, but rather is open dialogue to help shape what bills move forward. This is one of the many phases dictator Cuomo bypassed when enacting his gun control ban.

This will be my first time testifying at a hearing, anyone with experience who wishes to give some advice, i am open ears.

Below is a copy of my written testimony which i will have a chance to express verbally with state reps and senators.
-------------------------------

Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary,

I write to you in opposition of the current gun control proposals, specifically the plans suggested by Connecticut state Senator, Beth Bye. I cannot help but feel that the vast majority of these proposals will do nothing to deter, prevent, or inhibit acts of violence in the state of Connecticut.

According to her page on the state website, Senator Bye wishes to introduce a bill that, if turned into law, will prohibit the possession of firearms capable of accepting magazines which hold more than ten rounds; modify the definition of an "assault weapon" to include only one feature (the current "assault weapon" ban includes two features); impose a fifty percent sales tax on ammunition and magazines; and outlaw online ammunition sales.

On the issue of ten-round capacity limits for firearms, a recent event in early January involving a mother from Loganville Georgia addresses this very issue. While home with her two children, the mother heard knocking on the door. She looked out and saw a man she did not recognize and decided not to open the door. The man then went to his car to grab a crow bar while the terrified woman called her husband, the police and gathered both her children and a .38 caliber revolver to go hide in a nearby closet. The man, Paul Slater, successfully entered the house and made his way into the room where the mother and her two children were hiding. When he opened the door, she shot him five times in the chest, face, and neck. Slater survived, but the woman and her kids were able to make it to safety at a neighbor's house. How many rounds would have been enough? What if more than one intruder were involved? These questions are for the individual to answer, not the government. The second amendment does not protect our right to hunt deer; it protects our right to self-preservation and the preservation of our family. Arbitrarily deciding the number of cartridges a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen can have in their weapon does nothing to enhance the safety of that individual or their family. In the story of the Georgian mother, the only person that benefitted from being armed with fewer than 10 rounds was the criminal.

Currently, the Assault Weapon Ban in Connecticut defines an assault weapon as being any semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine and 2 or more items from a list of features. If senator Bye has her way, this definition will be changed to include only one feature. This would turn thousands of law-abiding citizens into felons overnight for features that do not actually contribute to the lethality of the firearm; rather, almost everything on the list contributes to the ergonomics of the gun. Examples include adjusting the length of pull (adjustable stocks), changing the center of gravity (vertical foregrip), and enhancing control of the firearm (vertical foregrip, pistol grip, different stocks). Arguably, these features increase the safety of the firearms as they enable the gun to be modified to fit almost any body size, type, and strength. By eliminating features that make a gun more comfortable and controllable while shooting, the law will have the opposite outcome that it was created for.

In my opinion, the most unreasonable of all actions in Senator Bye's bill is the fifty percent tax on ammunition. Mass violence is committed by sociopathic individuals exhibiting extremely unstable psychological behavior, and is not dependent on the price of ammunition. Not a single disturbed would-be mass murderer is going to wake up in the morning and say "tax is just too expensive on ammo, I'm not going to slaughter people today." That's just silly. Nor do I believe it will affect everyday gun violence on the streets by gangs and criminals who fund their operations using illicit money. The only people such a tax will affect are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, who Bye says this gun legislation is not about hurting. How many good people will be able to afford weekend trips to the range with their friends and family with this new tax, when ammo is already extremely expensive? How many people will be able to afford to shoot competitively? How many new gun owners will be able to afford to practice enough to become proficient with a firearm and thus an asset to their home security, rather than a liability? Does all this sound "reasonable" or like "common sense"?

Again, my stance is against Senator Bye's desired gun control bills and I thank you for your time and consideration.
 

·
Temp. self-imposed ban.
Joined
·
4,410 Posts
Be yourself.
Tell the truth.
Remember : attorney does not ask any questions he/she does not have an answer to.

Good luck and G-d BLESS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,910 Posts
Be strong, stand by your convictions, and don't let them intimidate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
The president of the NSSF is speaking too. He's is an eloquent speaker that hits every point. Hopefully with decent speakers like yourself and him Our side will be properly represented although It's a tough battle.
 

·
Sifting Through the Ruins
Joined
·
8,029 Posts
If you can work this in I guarantee you will gets some murmers to the back of the room:

"You know, in the 1920's, after some notorious crimes involving African American young men, a public clamor arose about black people and what to do with them.

Fear, media exaggeration, emotion and distorted facts produced unconstitutional laws, compelling black people to ride in the back of busses, not live in certain neighborhoods, go to segregated schools and so forth. It was for the safety of women and children and deemed "sensible" and "reasonable".

Sound familiar Senator?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,987 Posts
Mention the fact that most guns used in crimes are illegally owned AND illegally obtained. Also, the fact that since they are illegally obtained, nothing will stop "mass shooters" from simply bringing multiple firearms or magazines (as evidenced in numerous recent events), which completely negates any implied benefits of magazine size restrictions. This is compounded by the fact that, regardless of magazine restrictions, shooters choose when and where to begin shooting, and frequently reload while moving between large clusters of victims while nobody is present to stop them.

On the issue of costs of "cheap" guns, ammo, taxes... Use their own dirty tactics against them. Increasing the cost of firearms, magazines, and ammunition is discrimination and racist. It precludes the ability of lower income individuals and families to protect themselves, by making the means too expensive to obtain, or practice enough to become proficient.

HAMMER them on the issue of expensive and frequently inaccessible mental health care, since mental issues are often at the root of these events.

Why don't we have SUBSTANTIALLY harsher penalties for violent crimes - especially ones involving guns - or illegal possession of a gun?

Why don't we investigate the side effects of the psychotropic medications the shooters have been using? Trying printing and reading this (quote where and whom it's from, to avoid any legal issues from people thinking you're claiming it as your own work). Http://www.ladailypost.com/content/brief-history-psychotropic-drugs-prescribed-mass-murderers
 

·
dislike Cuomo!
Joined
·
4,995 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
If you can work this in I guarantee you will gets some murmers to the back of the room:

"You know, in the 1920's, after some notorious crimes involving African American young men, a public clamor arose about black people and what to do with them.

Fear, media exaggeration, emotion and distorted facts produced unconstitutional laws, compelling black people to ride in the back of busses, not live in certain neighborhoods, go to segregated schools and so forth. It was for the safety of women and children and deemed "sensible" and "reasonable".


Sound familiar Senator?
I like the parallel in dialogue. I cant put it in my testimony as it is already redlining my time limits, but i will use it depending on what questions they ask me.
 

·
Assault is a behavior; Not a weapon.
Joined
·
12,115 Posts
Congratulations and good luck to you.

My only piece of advice is don't get angry or frustrated if the folks you're testifying to argue emotion above fact.

And elsewhere on this site is a rather lengthy article correlating psychotropic drug use with mass shootings. It just might help to print that out. (I believe it's located in "Out-of-state Crimes".
 
  • Like
Reactions: NRATC53

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,167 Posts
Thank you from Stamford!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,179 Posts
Be yourself.
Tell the truth.
Remember : attorney does not ask any questions he/she does not have an answer to.

Good luck and G-d BLESS.
Good advice, I was an electronics instructor in the service, if you are nervous at all it is natural the best way to minimize this is to be familiar with your subject and it sounds like you are. One other thing I would say speak the truth however it may help or hurt you. If someone catches you in one lie you have lost all creditability and you have given them the right not to believe anything you say.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,189 Posts
Good Luck to you!

long Island lost a patriot!
 

·
Grand Poobah
Joined
·
21,170 Posts
One thing I think you want to state clearly & emphatically:
The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting and target shooting. It has to do with personal defense and defense of the nation; Against tyranny. That's what its for. So any discussions about what someone needs to "hunt" with is irrelevant.

While you want to have a rational discussion and use facts the antis do not. They use "feelings" Understand how your enemy thinks. They will lie. You can not. But if you catch them in an untruth call them on it.

Ask how a pistol grip, or a bayonet lug of a flash suppressor makes a rifle more dangerous?
How?

Before this awful tragedy according to the FBI in 2011 only 1 person was murdered with a rifle. Yet 18 murders were committed with knives 10 with other weapons and even 6 using hands.
Inanimate objects are not the problem. People kill. Mental illness is one of the biggest problems we face yet few want to talk about that.

Every single one of these mass murders were committed by a mentally deranged psychopath. Many of them looking for their 15 minutes of fame which the media grants them. Do you Senator advocate restricting the First amendment rights of everyone to save lives?

If people like the Senator would have their way every firearm in America would miraculously be gone. And if that happened, there would still be mass murder of innocents. If that happened there would still be violent crime. In fact, history proves there would be more of them.

Good Luck. We look forward to hearing what happened.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top