Category Archives: guns

The penalties of gun control

Gun Control™ is here and it’s here to stay. This is not about whether we should have reasonable limits on the ownership, sale and transfer of weapons (we should) or even whether the limits proposed are reasonable (eh) or whether some types of weapons should be outright banned (arguable) or whether you’re a moron for waiting this long to realize that the State has been infringing on your rights and whittling away at them for decades (it has).

We can talk about the incomprehensible argument that there should be no limit on the ownership of guns because only criminals use guns in a criminal way (I think there’s a word for this linguistic marvel but I’m too tongue-tied to think of it right now), which is accurate, because once you use a gun in a criminal way, you’re a criminal (but we won’t), or we can talk about just how much you’re going to need a lawyer now that some types of ownership has been outlawed (but that would just be me rubbing it in), so instead I’m just going to complain about how this bill will succeed only in making life worse for my clients.

Because it will do just that. Continue reading

State to establish dangerous weapon offender registry

You knew it was going to happen. It was just a matter of time. Doesn’t matter that we weren’t the first state to rush to pass gun control laws, as long as we’re the one with the best laws. And having the best laws means having the toughest laws and having the toughest laws not only means heavy regulation but also By-God-We’re-Going-To-Punish-The-Hell-Out-Of-You.

And so here we are. Along with bans on high capacity magazines and universal background checks, we also have “the nation’s first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry”. An idea that Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney has proposed before (here‘s a 2011 Courant article on that proposal), the registry requires that:

[I]ndividuals must register with DESPP if they have been convicted of any of more than 40 enumerated weapons offenses (mostly gun offenses) or another felony that the court makes a finding involved the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon.

Individuals must register with DESPP for a total of five years after their release into the community. During that time they must keep their registration address current at all times, and they must check in once per year, on the anniversary of their release, with local law enforcement in the town where they currently reside. Unlike Megan’s List, this registry will not be public. Instead, it will be available to law enforcement only.

In addition, this mega compromise super-awesome-best-in-the-world-bill naturally also “significantly increases penalties for many firearms trafficking and illegal possession offenses.” Of course it does.

These provisions will do nothing to stop another Adam Lanza. These provisions won’t affect James Holmes.

What they will do is further oppress an already oppressed segment of society. Now poor black and Hispanic defendants will have two more procedural hurdles to jump through and more opportunities to commit crimes.

So why not just take everyone who’s committed a crime and make them register somewhere with some agency. And we’ll make them undergo some rigorous testing when they’re released, so we can probe them and see if they’re doing the right thing. Maybe we can call it, hmm, let’s see, probe…probate…probation! Yes. Probation. And when they’re on probation they have to report to an officer of some sort. Someone who keeps tabs on them. Let’s see. What shall we call this Officer of Probation? Okay, nevermind, we can come back to that.

What’s that? We do that already? Oh. But what’s one more registration requirement, right? I mean, all of our other registries are working so wel-oh, wait.

Also included in the bill are a bunch of mental health provisions. Because now apparently the mantra is that people don’t kill people, but mentally ill people use guns to kill people. Whatever.

If you accept that flawed premise as the root cause of all gun-related evil (as has been bandied about by many since the mass shootings of the past few years); that these are mentally ill people who are committing crimes and of course no sane law abiding citizen would ever use a gun in an unlawful manner (of course they wouldn’t; once they do they aren’t law abiding anymore), then the question becomes, what to do with those that are mentally ill and thus predisposed to crime? Or are criminals mentally ill because only mentally ill people commit crimes with guns? And if we have such a large gun problem, that means that there are many people who are mentally ill, correct?

The truth, of course, is that some mentally ill people commit crimes, some sane people commit crimes, some mentally ill people don’t commit crimes and some sane people don’t commit crimes. What’s also true is that our prisons are filled with people who did commit crimes because they are mentally ill and there are zero options available to treat and assist them and prevent them from re-offending. Putting them on a fucking list isn’t going to solve anything.

So what’s plainly missing from these “mental health provisions” is any mention of mental illness among the prison population and the taking of any steps to address that huge neglected problem. At least a quarter of all inmates have mental illnesses and in a society where there are fewer and fewer resources being assigned to diagnose and treat those mental illnesses, any bill that proposes to make mental health reforms but doesn’t so much as mention the incarcerated population (in a bill that is all about criminals and criminalizing conduct, no less, wtf, is this crazy season?) is a joke.

WAIT. It’s April Fool’s Day today, right? That’s got to be it. That’s the only explanation. Whew. Good one, Connecticut legislature.

Idioticy

We may or may not be living in the age of Idiocracy, but there is no dearth of people doing and saying completely idiotic things. Take, for instance, Sung-Ho Hwang. Mr. Hwang is an attorney and president-elect of the New Haven County Bar Association. He also did something kinda dumb, or really smart, depending on your perspective. He took a gun to a movie theater late at night and settled in to watch the latest Batman offering.

Someone spied the gun, called police and hilarity chaos ensued. 23 of New Haven’s finest responded and went to the wrong screening. I imagine the 911 dispatch went something like this:

911: Hello?

Caller: There’s a guy in the movie theater and he’s got a gun.

911: Oh shit. We’re coming.

-End Call-

Apparently no one bothered to ask which movie, or what he was doing. Because the answer to that would’ve been “paying $3.75 for a fucking bottle of water and $14.00 for a tub of popcorn”, which is the real crime, if you ask me.

But I digress.

Mr. Hwang, apparently, is talking on his phone (frankly, he should’ve been arrested for that, amirite?) in the movie theater, when police swarm in and this happens:

Officers went into the theater, ordered the approximately 12 patrons to put their hands up, and had them file out of the theater. They were then patted down as they passed.

When officers located the armed man, who they later identified as Hwang, they drew their weapons and ordered him to put his hands up. He did not comply with their orders and remained in his seat while using his cell phone, police said.

Now, if you’re reading that thinking “wait a second, if he’s standing when they patted him down, how did he end up seated again?” that’s not your fault. That’s shitty journalism from the oldest continuously published newspaper in the country. What really happened, at least according to the police, is this:

According to police Lt. Jeff Hoffman, officers responded and searched two rooms of the theater at about 10:10 p.m. and found several people matching the description of the armed man.  Those people were given pat-downs and then told to leave the theater with their hands up, police said.

None of the people in the first room, where “The Watch” was showing, was the suspect. In the second room, where the Batman movie was playing, police with pistols and Tasers drawn approached a man on his phone fitting the description and told him to show his hands.

This, kids, is where, as they say, the plot thickens. Police say Hwang didn’t immediately comply with their request to please get off the phone sir so other people can enjoy their movie-going experience show them his hands (shouldn’t that be hand, since one hand was presumably holding the phone?). Hwang, of course, says he did.

Hwang, it turns out, has a valid license to carry a concealed weapon in the State of Connecticut. Bollocks. So what else is left to do but charge him with that catch-all, useless and routinely misapplied Breach of Peace as well as Interfering with an Officer.

I’m honestly fascinated by the thought process behind some of these arresting and charging decisions. Is there such faith in the presumption of guilt and the juggernaut like nature of the criminal justice system that cops just think “fuck it, let’s arrest him for something, the courts can sort it out later and we’re pretty sure he’ll get convicted of some crime or other?”

Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once. What he did is no Breach of Peace:

Here‘s the relevant Breach of Peace statute:

(a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person’s property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, “public place” means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.

Openly carrying a licensed weapon into a public place doesn’t fit subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6). You know what that means? It’s not, by definition, a breach of peace.

Neither is sitting in a movie theater and having people panic around you while you’re doing something legal. If that were the criteria for a  Breach of Peace, wouldn’t a black man be guilty if he showed up at a KKK jamboree and the racists went nuts? Wouldn’t it be a crime if I wandered the halls at Yale reading ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ and the literature majors booed and hissed at me?

I’d recommend that whoever has to prosecute this piece of shit case take a close look at subsection (6) above. “By an act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do”.

But what of the Interfering, you ask? If you believe everything a cop says, why don’t you come over and we can sign that deed to that bridge I’m selling you for $1,000,000,000. Don’t take my word for it? Here’s what someone else at the movie had to say:

In New Haven, Porsche Edmundson and a companion described a confusing, frightening scene when police first barged in.  They were in the theater next to where “The Dark Knight Rises” was playing, sitting in the back, when police entered with weapons drawn. She said there were less than a dozen people there and police told everyone to put their hands up. Police then frisked her companion and the other white males.

Edmundson was upset that before the lights came up it was difficult to tell that the men were police.  “It was a split second of indecision as to who they were,” said her companion, who did not want to give his name, but seemed shaken by the event.

So, you’re in a movie theater, in the dark, chomping on unhealthy popcorn and talking on your cellphone and men barge in and start shouting commands at you: you’re a lawyer, you have a gun, you don’t know what the hell is going on. Is it that unreasonable that it took him a few extra seconds to get his hands in the air like he just don’t care?

Hey, you want to throw up in your mouth a little? Here:

Had he immediately showed his hands, the official said, criminal charges might have been averted and instead “maybe he would have been counseled on how to better conceal his weapon while attending a ‘Dark Knight’ movie.”

Police Chief Dean Esserman, who was on scene late Tuesday, thanked the citizen who brought his fears to the attention of the manager and for the manager who called 911.

“New Haven police are remarkable,” Esserman said.  “Their response was prompt and it was clear to everyone that I spoke to that their discipline was notable,” Esserman said.

You know what they say: If you see something, say something.

Moral of the Story 1: On a serious note, shouldn’t this incident and the one last year that I linked to above and the general confusing about concealed carry laws in CT and the apparent hysteria that’s generated whenever someone sees someone else carrying a gun in public suggest that perhaps we might need to have a debate in CT about whether we actually want it to be legal to carry a concealed weapon in public? If we can’t handle it without overreacting and freaking out, then maybe it should be illegal. That way, we’ll stop crying wolf every time we see someone with a concealed weapon.

Moral of the Story 2: Don’t take a gun to a movie theater right after some whackjob’s just killed 12 people at a movie theater. With a gun. That was showing the same movie you went to.

Moral of the Story 3: People are idiots.

Legally carrying a weapon is a crime

wait, does that count as Arson?

Look, I dislike guns. I dislike them a lot. I don’t believe that people kill people, rather that guns – the objects from which projectiles are discharged at a high rate of velocity, thereby permitting them to enter the bodies of individuals, causing fatal damage to bodily organs – kill people. I’d rather there weren’t any, or at the very least, we had stringent gun control laws.

But do you know what I dislike more? Stupid laws and even stupider interpretation of laws that criminalize perfectly legal conduct. Somehow, despite my strict personal opposition to guns, it is still legal to carry a licensed firearm in Connecticut. In public. Openly.

Yet, for some reason, the state’s “top criminal justice official” – a made up title if I ever heard one – wouldn’t recommend it. Why, you might logically ask, is it not a good idea? For the same reason that photographers across the country are being arrested for videotaping police encounters with civilians: because no one knows the law (see also this post by Balko on an issue similar to the one in the instant post).

I’m not making this shit up.

Mike Lawlor, already featured in one post today for his sage legal prognostications, offers up another:

“In almost every situation you can imagine this happening in, it qualifies as breach of peace,” he said. “If you walk into a restaurant with a gun it’s almost by definition a breach of peace.”

That results in an arrest and sets in motion a chain of events that usually results in the revocation of an issued pistol permit, he said. And that’s the way it should be, Lawlor said. Anyone who walks into a McDonalds plainly carrying a firearm either intends to alarm people or is irresponsible, he said.

“Almost by definition”? Oh, really? Challenge Accepted! Here‘s the relevant Breach of Peace statute: Continue reading

Heller goes to the airport

In this latest installment of “Heller goes to…”, in which we follow the zany adventures of Heller v. D.C.*, the lovable Supreme Court case, as he makes his way through the country, Heller decides to go to the airport to see what the fuss is all about.

He decided to take a trip to Atlanta, GA – one of the nation’s busiest airports. After all, he now has a right to be possessed. It’s in the Constitution and what better place to exercise one’s Constitutional rights than an airport!

In addition, the state of GA had just passed a law making it legal to carry a concealed weapon while on public transportation and other fine places where other people congregate, so they can all compare their pieces and be happy.

So off went good old Heller to the airport:

City officials in charge of the airport declared it a “gun-free zone” when a law allowing people to carry guns on public transit and other places took effect Tuesday. Gun rights supporters, including a state legislator who helped pass the law, quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the designation.

Rep. Tim Bearden, a Republican from Villa Rica and a former police officer, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Bearden sponsored the state law.

He had told a newspaper he would carry a concealed weapon to the airport Tuesday when he picked up his family. But he told The Associated Press by telephone Tuesday morning, “There will be no reason for any confrontation at the airport.”

The airport authorities were naturally upset, since the country has been in a state of orange alert for the last 7 years and airports lead to planes and well…you know the rest.

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin said citizens can’t bring guns into the terminal and argued that airports remain attractive targets for terrorism.

Allowing citizens to carry firearms “would create an environment that would endanger millions of people,” she said.

So let me get this straight. I have to endure hours of long lines at airports and invasive and intrusive searches and answer all sorts of ridiculous questions so we can be “safe”, but all of that security takes a back seat to some yahoo who doesn’t feel manly enough without his gun tucked in his shoulder holster (or wherever the kids are carrying it these days) and has to carry it to the damn airport?

It’s also quite an interesting argument to make – that an airplanes are “public transportation”.

Oh you silly Heller, you! Always getting into crazy situations!

*Yes, I realize that this GA law is not a product of Heller. I am using the Heller name as a surrogate for the right to bear arms and any and all state laws designed to make such possession legal