I think the reason some people rob jewelry stores is because they figure that high-end criminals in the movies hit things like banks, armored cars, and jewelry stores. Since armored cars are hard to take, and banks make it a federal offense, jewelry stores look like nice, safe, soft targets.
An attempted jewelry store in Connecticut, however, didn't necessarily result in stolen cash and jewels, but it did result in the anti-gun lobby being robbed of its ability to pretend the state's gun control laws worked worth a damn.
It started with the attempted armed robbery of Fine Gold Jewelry Store in Hartford.
Daizuante Springer is charged with first-degree robbery, third-degree assault, second-degree criminal mischief, possession of an assault weapon, carrying a pistol without a permit, possession of large capacity magazine, possessing weapons in a motor vehicle, interfering with police, possession of burglary tools, first-degree reckless endangerment, theft of a firearm and risk of injury, the Hartford Police Department said Sunday evening.
That's a lot of charges. I suspect some of them will be dismissed following a plea deal, but let's look at the gun charges themselves. They're in possession of an assault weapon, carrying a pistol without a permit, possessing a large-capacity magazine, possessing weapons in a motor vehicle, and theft of a firearm.
It doesn't appear that possession of a firearm by a felon is on the list, so we'll assume this is Mr. Springer's first felony brush with the law. Probably not that safe of an assumption, mind you, but we'll pretend just for the sake of argument.
Regardless of that status, you cannot lawfully purchase a so-called assault weapon in Connecticut. You cannot lawfully possess a standard-capacity magazine, much less a truly high-capacity mag, in the state of Connecticut. You cannot carry a firearm without a permit in the state. All of these laws were meant not to be used as charges after the fact but to prevent people from doing all of the things Springer is accused of doing.
The fact that he reportedly stole at least one firearm recovered tells you a lot about him and a lot about how little he cared for the law in the first place. Springer is an alleged thief and was willing to use force to steal, so why would anyone be shocked that he'd ignore the laws on guns when he couldn't even adhere to the basic law of "thou shalt not steal"? That is one of those universal laws we all seem to agree on.
The answer is because criminals don't care.
These laws only inhibit the law-abiding. They didn't stop Springer's alleged robbery attempt, nor his alleged possession of firearms that are illegal in the state of Connecticut. They don't stop thousands of other criminals running around the streets of anti-gun states like Connecticut.
Springer and people like him will do as they wish and screw the law.
Meanwhile, those who would be victims to people like that are limited in how they can defend themselves. The state of Connecticut places all kinds of burdens on people who want to protect themselves and their businesses, like the owners of high-end jewelry stores. That's wrong on every level, and there's nothing anyone can say that would make me think otherwise.