By Kayleigh Hamilton
Gun control is only as good as the police who are tasked with enforcing it.
Anti-gun lawmakers in one state expected the police to be on their side.
But they were stunned after one act of defiance by police left their gun control law in serious jeopardy.
Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control laws in America, with an anti-gun governor and a majority in the legislature that wants to ban guns.
But thanks to the system of checks and balances in the United States, these anti-gun politicians don’t simply get free rein to take away people’s guns left and right.
The court system gets a say too, and this is where the elected officials in Connecticut’s state government have a problem.
The National Association for Gun Rights has taken them to court to challenge their semi-auto ban and try to restore gun rights to the people of their state.
And while the Connecticut state government is fighting back against this lawsuit, they got a nasty surprise from national police organizations.
It turns out that the police aren’t too keen on the idea of acting as gun-grabbers, and they came out strongly against this law.
According to a press release from the National Association for Gun Rights, “The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association and the National Association of Chiefs of Police filed an Amicus brief in support of our case against Connecticut’s ban semiautomatics and standard capacity magazines.”
“The supporting amicus brief from the two police organizations refutes this by showing that 5.56 is in fact a smaller round than previous infantry rifles and that even high-ranking members of the military find it too small. The amicus quotes Major General Robert Scales as stating, ‘The civilian version of the 5.56mm bullet was designed as a ‘varmint killer’ and six states prohibit its use for deer hunting because it is not lethal enough.’”
“Most interesting is that the Connecticut ban does not apply to police officers, and they have gone out of their way to let the court know that the reason police officers carry these rifles is precisely why they are an exceptional choice for self-defense in civilian hands.”
This is a fascinating turn of events that Connecticut’s anti-gun politicians surely did not see coming. After all, police in many states have supported gun control and opposed things like Constitutional Carry.
But that all changed in Connecticut, much to the chagrin of the politicians who are defending this law.
The press release continues, “Our case at the Second Circuit is in its opening briefing stage following our appeal of the District Court’s denial of preliminary injunction in August.”
“In Judge Arterton’s district court ruling, she opined that AR-15s and similar rifles are only sought out for their militaristic features and are not useful for self-defense.”
This is a fantastic turn of events for gun owners, and an extremely disappointing one for the politicians in Connecticut who were hoping to disarm the people of their state.