The anti-gun jihadists of the Connecticut government, who boast that the state's ban of so-called "assault weapons" (recently upheld as "Constitutional" by a federal judge despite his admission that the banned firearms and magazines are "in common use," and thus deserving Second Amendment protection even under the narrowly written Heller decision) is now the most draconian in the nation, are not satisfied with mere compliance with every detail of the law. They demand abject, terrified worship of the law. This is illustrated by comments made in response to resident gun manufacturer Stag Arms' attempts to gain clarification from the Connecticut State Police on whether or not the company's new design for a .22 Long Rifle caliber rifle would meet the state's oppressive requirements.
The police are claiming that they are under no obligation to provide that clarity, which means that if Stag builds the new design, and the state determines that it is not in compliance (with a law that even the federal judge who upheld it admits that "several provisions of the legislation are not written with the utmost clarity"), the company will find itself in legal hot water. As the CT Post reports, Governor Malloy's office is unsympathetic:
"It's not the job of law enforcement to give a stamp of approval for a company or an individual's actions," said Andrew Doba, a spokesman for Malloy. "It's the job of law enforcement to protect public safety. Instead of trying to figure out ways to get around the common-sense gun laws that were passed last session, gun manufacturers should join the efforts of the vast majority of residents who support having safer communities, free of gun violence."
See what Doba did there? Stag's attempts to establish just what will be considered legal, and what will not--attempts, in other words, to find out how to comply with the law--have magically morphed into "trying to figure out ways to get around the common-sense [sic] gun laws . . . ." A board member of a local forcible citizen disarmament group makes a similar, but even more bizarre, argument:
"We hope that the gun manufacturers will comply with both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and not attempt to make changes to firearms that have been used in mass shootings such as here in Sandy Hook," said Monte Frank, a board member and counsel of the Newtown Action Alliance, a local grassroots organization supportive of gun control reform.
First, as vague as the letter of the law is, Frank wants Stag to somehow divine the "spirit" of the law, as well--and then obey that "spirit." Secondly, now he's objecting to "changes to firearms that have been used in mass shootings"? The law requires that they be changed--that seems to have been what the "gun control" zealots wanted.
This is, of course, hardly the first time we have seen this "logic" from the gun ban zealots. This column noted that early in the controversy over "bullet buttons," for quick--but legal--magazine changes in the California market, CBS News characterized the development as yet another "loophole" to be closed. California Attorney General Kamala Harris (the one who so appeals to President Obama) offered a familiar argument, according to CBS:
We asked the Attorney General about that. Her response, “We would like to hope that these manufacturers would stop trying to get around the intention of the law. We would like to believe that people wouldn’t purchase products from manufacturers that are obviously trying to get around the intention of the law, unfortunately that is not happening.”
The Violence Policy Center has also riffed extensively on this theme, lamenting about the gun industry taking steps "to evade the law" (the now expired federal "assault weapons" ban), by designing firearms that complied with the law.
One particularly rabid (and not particularly bright) anti-gun blogger--to whom this column will not link-- had several similar comments on the "bullet button" situation:
Imventing [sic] ways to circumvent legitimate laws is morally criminal.
If you choose to use inventive ways to circumvent it, then you are a sneaky hidden criminal.
Yep--activity that is neither hidden nor criminal renders one a "hidden criminal," in his tiny mind. More:
What you're talking about is sneaky, tricky bulls**t which is used to justify not obeying laws you disagree with. That's wrong.
. . . what I want from you is an admission that if you don't follow the spirit of the law and look for ways to circumvent that, the spirit or the intent of the law, then you are what I like to call a sneaky hidden criminal.
Meantime if you strive to outsmart the "spirit" of a particular law, in my book, you're a hidden criminal.
The same blogger described the piece of metal in the "Liberator" 3-D printed pistol as a way "to beat the law about metal detection," rather than as obedience to that ridiculous law, and about "bump-fire" stocks, said: "Sometimes I think you guys just love to break the law, or find ways to get around it." In both these cases, of course, just as with the "bullet buttons," even the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has stated that these developments are in no way violations of any federal gun law.
All that said, Stag is not necessarily above reproach here. Rather than trying so hard to obey an evil law, jumping through Connecticut's byzantine legal hoops, in order to make some kind of watered-down, not particularly useful "regime change rifle," Stag really ought to consider taking its quality jobs and its tax revenue out of Connecticut, and moving to somewhere in the United States.