Completely expected problem enforcing gun control in Connecticut...

[virginia mountainman]

Seems like in their emotional rush to restrict semi-auto rifles in CT, they ran into a small snag, (that was completely foreseen by everyone but gun control advocates).. Just who where they going to get to round up the guns that were not properly registered by the new laws...

They can't get the police too, because according to this report, almost 70% of CT sworn police officers are in violation of the law...

With in hours a print off of all sworn Law Enforcement officers in the state was obtained. Comparisons of the list of gun owners who failed to comply with registration requirements and sworn LEOs showed a startling figure. Just over 68% of Connecticut cops had failed to register firearms according to the new law.

Now the hand wringing, moaning, whining, and sniveling begins...

So now Connecticut is in little quagmire. The powers that be are making all kinds of threats, but there is no one to follow through on the threats.

And the lesson that should be learned by this episode, is one that is being ignored, if you can't enforce these new "common sense" laws in CT and NY, what makes them think they can anywhere else?

And a little more respect for the law goes right into the toilet, but the respect for the police just went up a notch!

http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-halts-plans-round-firearms-finding-cops-state-list/

[GGJohn]

1. So those tasked with enforcing the law are refusing to obey the law?

That being the case, them why should citizens obey the law?

[msongs]

2. no surprise there eh?

[GGJohn]

3. Cops breaking the law?

Nope, no surprise there.

[virginia mountainman]

4. They are just following the example of the fed..

Sanctuary cities, non enforcement of marijuana laws, etc..etc..

If they can pick and choose what law to enforce, the people should have the same ability.

After all their is the "equal protection clause" in the Bill of Rights..

[GGJohn]

5. Exactly.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[beevul]

7. It takes very little...

It takes very little to upset the balance that is supposed to be struck by being "a nation of laws not men".

And it takes ten fold to right it.

[beevul]

6. (that was completely foreseen by everyone but gun control advocates)

(that was completely foreseen by everyone but gun control advocates)

I think some of them knew what would happen, but could care less.

Its about saying "see, we did it here, we can do it there too!", ignoring all other reality, and enjoying the smug satisfaction of poking 'those gun humpers' in the eye.

There may be some outliers, but I think the majority of them fall squarely in that camp.

[virginia mountainman]

8. Exactly....

I think some of them knew what would happen, but could care less.

They really could NOT careless could they...

[beevul]

9. I think thats generally true, in one direction.

I think they could care less 'in general' that it isn't being enforced, as enforcement wasn't the primary goal, like with the AWB. Its a desensitization/normalization implement.

I'm sure, however, that there are those who are extremely disappointed that they're not going to see average gun owners getting cuffed and stuffed on the evening news for possessing a rifle of a 50-ish year old design based on 100 year old technology.

Imagine for a minute, the gleeful daily google dumps we'd see if it were being enforced, and how the 'just looking for input" thread would double in size in a month.

[Big_Mike]

10. There is a dictum in the military "Never issue an order you know won't be followed"

It would certainly be refreshing if legislatures and executives thought about that premise when enacting legitimate ore even "feel good" legislation.

[dairydog91]

11. This source strikes me as being on par with InfoWars.

Really, no sources? Bullshit-o-meter is going off.

Course, part of the reason that the BS-meter is pinging is because CT law enforcement didn't really give much of a damn about the previous assault weapons ban (The CT state one was in place since the 90s). I don't know why they'd start caring now. The same dynamics are in place. The state legislature doesn't want to spend actual money or effort on a roundup. Even a single Ruby Ridge incident is probably more than state law enforcement or the governor's office wants to take on. There isn't really a "registry" to speak of if they wanted to go out and confiscate rifles.

Cops, especially in the rural areas where gun ownership is prevalent, tend to recruit from a pool of applicants who are disproportionately pro-gun. If you are paying your taxes and aren't hosting rip roaring domestic disputes on Friday nights, they aren't about to kick down doors. Especially so, for that matter, in the Newtown area, which along with neighboring towns is full of wealthy and VERY wealthy people. Local cops in that area are usually on some pretty sweet salaries and pension plans. Like hell they're going to piss off the local electorate by conducting door-to-door SWAT searches of bankers, corporate lawyers, surgeons, and engineers.

[branford]

12. The lack of compliance with Connecticut's (and NY"s) gun laws has been reported

by a number of reputable sources.

However, as you appear to acknowledge, this lack of compliance is entirely unsurprising, and any serious attempts at enforcement would be politically very dangerous without demonstrably improving public safety.

Particularly based on some of the lawmaker quotes, the new gun laws appear to have been intentionally designed to make it appear that lawmakers were "doing something" without actually doing anything.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/conn-legislators-plan-no-additional-efforts-enforce-new-gun-laws

http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-10/business/hc-haar-gun-registration-felons-20140210_1_assault-weapons-rifles-gun-registration-law