Connecticut lawmakers miffed at gun control challenge

AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File

The state of Connecticut has always been a left-leaning, dyed-in-the-wool blue state. The idea of them supporting gun control was never shocking, but in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, it ramped up. To be fair, the horror of that day was going to resonate in various ways.

However, gun control wasn’t the way to deal with the grief.

Regardless, that’s what they did.

As I noted on Monday, there’s a challenge to their assault weapon ban.

Now, it seems Connecticut officials are a bit miffed that someone would dare challenge their precious laws.

Democratic leaders on Tuesday spoke out against a recently filed lawsuit that seeks to overturn gun laws passed in Connecticut following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, including a ban on assault weapons like the one used by the shooter.

On the cusp of the 10-year anniversary of the nation’s deadliest school shooting, in which 20 young children and six educators were killed, a new lawsuit claims that Connecticut’s ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines is unconstitutional.

“They came here to plead with us, particularly members of the judiciary committee, to write the strictest gun laws in the nation,” said Tong.

“We heard their pleas and we passed the strictest gun laws in the nation,” said Tong. “And since then, in these past 10 years, we have kept people safe. That’s what this is about, it’s about them, it’s about families.”

Tong said that being at the task of being at the forefront of gun safety legislation was thrust upon Connecticut in December of 2012.

“This is not a fight we chose. Nobody wants to be here, but we’re here because of what happened 10 years ago, what still happens occasionally in our state, to other families and families across this country,” he said.

Interestingly, though, neither Tong nor anyone else in the report really has anything concrete to offer. They claim that the state’s assault weapon ban saves lives, but we have no reason to believe that to be the case.

After all, New York’s assault weapon ban didn’t stop Buffalo. Highland Park’s assault weapon ban didn’t stop the shooting there on July 4th.

For all the talk about Texas not having an assault weapon ban, they seem to be glossing over all the times such a restriction failed to do anything.

The truth is, a shooting like Sandy Hook is rare all on its own. The fact that Connecticut hasn’t had another one is statistically meaningless. They could have become a Second Amendment sanctuary state like Missouri and it’s unlikely there would be another mass shooting.

So what we have are officials upset that someone would challenge the law but who can’t provide any real data showing the law has done the least bit of good.

Then they try to discredit the lawsuit itself.

Tong and Lamont both pointed out that the new federal lawsuit was filed by an out-of-state organization.

“This is not homegrown litigation, this is not people in Connecticut rising up to assert their rights, these are people from faraway places,” said Tong.

Maybe it’s just me, but it actually sounds here like Tong knows this law infringes on people’s rights, yet he supports it anyway. I mean, he’s saying that these aren’t people trying to assert their rights, which implies that the state has infringed on those rights.

Further, how is this different than Giffords or Brady coming in and filing a lawsuit on behalf of someone to challenge a pro-gun law? National groups support local individuals all the time in challenging laws. The ACLU, for example, is a prime example of a group that exists almost entirely to do just that.

Why is it now a problem?

So we have a law they can’t defend either as a non-issue from a rights standpoint nor can they defend it from an effectiveness standpoint, but they still don’t want anyone challenging it.

That’s because the law existing on the books makes them feel warm and fuzzy. It makes them feel good; like they’re doing something even when they’re not.

Yet the people of Connecticut deserve better than laws that do nothing but restrict people’s rights, just so lawmakers can have a nice, warm blanky to rock themselves to sleep with.