Connecticut’s most wide-ranging gun control measure since the 2013 law enacted after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting takes effect Sunday, with proponents vowing to pursue more gun legislation despite legal challenges happening across the country.

The new law, signed by Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont in June, bans the open carrying of firearms and prohibits the sale of more than three handguns within 30 days to any one person, with some exceptions for instructors and others.

“We will not take a break and we cannot stop now, and we will continue to pass life-saving laws until we end gun violence in Connecticut. Our lives depend on it,” said Jeremy Stein, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence.

  • nezrock@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    This law is going to be struck down as unconstitutional almost immediately.

    If they’re going to ban open carry, they need to remove all fees and procedures (prints, etc) for obtaining a concealed carry permit. Otherwise, it only serves to disenfranchise poorer people.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Odd that it could be struck down as unconstitutional since CT banned open carry when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were passed.

      Edit: It was actually Rhode Island that did although Connecticut did pass gun control measures in the early 1800s.

      • nezrock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The right to bear arms for self defense is in enshrined in the Connecticut Constitution, with no explicit or implied exceptions.

        The US Supreme Court ruled last year, that, quote, “Americans have a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public places, arguing that a century-old New York law requiring a ‘proper cause’ to carry a gun outside of the home is a violation of Second Amendment rights.”

        That case they ruled on is from when New York tried to do the same thing (setting a precedent).

        The law is in outright defiance of the latest Supreme Court interpretation, and the Connecticut Constitution.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let’s not pretend the Supreme Court gives a shit about precedent even if it is recent. Conservatives killed that idea.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure. How many poor people were working in the financial sector when the banks misrepresented the value of mortgage backed securities and sold them to pension funds?

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Fine. If you narrowly define crime as that which involves a gun I am fairly confident you will find that it relates to income levels.

            Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.

      • Maeve@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Crimes” of despair added in maybe, maybe not. Things are criminalized that enough money means not really (epstein’s island), privacy to snort/smoke/inject drugs of choice, solicit sexual services; bribes, embezzlement, tax evasion; and not all crimes are equal, nor should be criminal.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are multiple orders of magnitude more poor people, and per capita they commit more gun crimes than the rich.

          Surely this is due to desperation and lack of opportunity and minimal access to mental health care. But we’re not fixing any of that, are we.

          • Maeve@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe the rich can afford to have their gun crimes committed for them?

            But we’re not fixing any of that, are we.

            Of course not. Perhaps because it would work?