This is the reason that State Police Det. Ken Damato gives for the Connecticut State Police refusing to give manufacturers any guidance on what features of a firearm would be within the bounds of the state’s new gun control laws. He says, “We’re not arbiters of weapons construction.”
Such excuses are interesting considering that he then admits the same non-engineers who know so little about firearms are telling retailers what they can and cannot sell, and I have little doubt that these non-engineer/non-firearms experts will gladly arrest a citizen with a gun they claim they don’t really understand.
Of course, don’t expect any consistency out of the State Police on this issue. They will defend their absolute knowledge when it comes to arresting people, but not when it comes to assisting the firearms business in attempting to follow the law.
This reeks of Massachusetts-style attitudes. There are two sets of requirements that have to be met before handguns can be sold in Massachusetts, and Attorney General requirements are essentially handled the same way that the Connecticut State Police are behaving now. They tell manufacturers that they will not assist in judging compliance–unless, that is, you break the law. Then they will gladly go after you for the crime.
I remember a period of a few weeks when Glock decided to try legally selling in Massachusetts back in 2004 or so. The AG’s office, which would not provide guidance up until that point, just suddenly decided that they didn’t actually meet requirements and made them illegal to sell. If you want an idea of the kind of mess that Connecticut may be on the path toward by adopting Massachusetts-style attitudes on gun regulations, then check out this crazy page by a Massachusetts gun dealer that tries to explain what he can and cannot sell.
Even the Connecticut press seems to think this attitude that the State Police are refusing to help people abide by the law is too much. Granted, their solution is to make government bigger to answer more questions, but at least they acknowledge that there’s a problem when bureaucrats try to keep things vague for people trying to follow the law.
I lived in CT for a while, so I’m not really surprised.
Given that manufacturers and distributors are taking a big risk to import potentially illegal firearms into the state, I’d say the next time the State police orders up a bunch of shiny new Glocks, Sigs, or whatever – the dealers should tell them to pound sand and go buy some Connecticut Valley Arms flintlock pistol kits.
Yep, that follows the lead that Barret set with their 50 cal rifles several years ago. Makes me wonder if any other gun makers have the stones…..
It’s because the gun grabbers consider following the law to be “exploiting loopholes.”
If they don’t tell the “Evil Merchants of Death”TM what is and is not illegal, that makes their existance dependent on the grace and patronage of the State.
Rule of Law is far too inconvenient when you have “important” work to do.
I had a boss like that who was trying to fire me. He would write me up for not properly completing an assigned task but refused to give instruction on what he wanted done.
Yeah, I don’t know what I want, but I’ll know it when I see it!
I just renewed by Connecticut carry permit. Among the things they sent me was a copy of a new law, passed in the aftermath of Newtown. It is now unlawful to fail to report the theft of an assault weapon. What was Mrs. Lanza supposed to do? Call 911 from the grave?
They aren’t lawyers either, but that doesn’t stop them from interpreting/enforcing the law as they see fit.
Ok, if they don’t know what’s legal or illegal how do they enforce the laws?
Oh, right, they make it up as they go, like normal……
“We’re not arbiters of weapons construction.â€
Oh but you are Officer Sunshine. That’s what happens when you get a shiny new law that says exactly that.
And I like that they gripe about having to tell people what is and is not a crime only *before* they break the law. I’m sure if it was after the fact, they’d be only too happy and willing to determine if that weapon construction was illegal.
The Mass gun-dealer sure is a piece of work. He gets all bent out of shape because people refuse to put themselves at risk of the capricious thugs HIS HOME STATE ELECTS.
While I wouldn’t word things quite like the dealer does, it’s a good gun shop in my experience. I bought a gun there, and I really appreciated their service. I think part of it is frustration in knowing that some stuff could be available and sold for reasonable profit. I noticed in at least one case, they offered to split the cost of compliance with a gun maker because they believe they can both make back more than the cost in profits. That’s a case of them trying to get the attention of gun makers for an opportunity.
I don’t care if, in person, they’re angels incarnate. The problem isn’t with the gun-makers; it’s with the dealer’s home state. Blaming the gun-makers for not wanting to risk sticking it into a meat grinder is childish.
So much for ‘A government of laws and not of men”. Basically, you have to break the law to find out what’s in it.
“We have to pass it in order to know what’s in it.” isn’t too far removed from “You have to violate it before we tell you about it.” Both sentiments are much more closely related to L’Etat, c’est moi. than “We the People…”
I do agree, it is about high time that gun manufacturers introduce the “real gun lobby”.
Glock, quit servicing Connecticut police. S&W do the same. Maybe I should tell Glock I’m holding off on my next purchase. ;-)
i bet they could pony up engineering stats on dunkin donuts products!
Cops in CT have been telling people for years that it’s illegal to open carry.
They don’t know the laws, and they don’t seem to have any interest in learning about them.