Withdrawing Support for Connecticut Citizens Defense League—Repeal The Second Amendment

I am removing my link to Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) from OGNDY.

I joined the National Rifle Association (NRA) after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school right here in Newtown where I live almost 3 years ago. That might sound like a counter-intuitive move from a guy that by no means is a die-hard gun enthusiast. Although I am a gun owner, I don’t identify as such; it’s not who I am. Politically most people who know me would say I’m a (far) Left-leaning, liberal/progressive with a dash of Libertarianism. I wouldn’t be offended if you added some kind of Socialist to the mix.

The reason I joined the NRA was in response to the dishonest politicking that took place in the wake of Sandy Hook, nationally in general, and more specifically here in CT where governor Dannel Malloy used downright unconstitutional bully tactics to force through meaningless, feel-good legislation.

I hadn’t paid much attention to the NRA prior to becoming a member, but I quickly discovered that they were a bunch that held values so far removed from my own that I didn’t want to be associated with them.

Then I tried Gun Owners of America and dropped them quickly for the same reason.

Finally I discovered CCDL, who, on the surface seemed like a less rabid organization, a local group of people who promoted safe gun-ownership, sensible gun laws and a polite way of conveying their ideas. I made a small contribution, put their sticker on my car and linked to them on my blog

I later found out, through various interactions with other members, that the same vitriol, the same hatred, the same fanaticism that is the trademark of the NRA, also permeates CCDL, but I didn’t disown them formally and kept the sticker on my car.

After Thursday’s shooting in Oregon at he Umpqua Community College I had to ask myself why it was important for me to belong to an (any) organization that promotes gun-ownership. I couldn’t come up with a reason. There are more important things for me to do than spend time and money to support the cause of private gun ownership in America.

I’m not strong pro-gun. I’m not strong anti-gun. I’m not getting rid of my guns (even though I haven’ fired any of them in almost two years), but I could live a happy, fulfilling life if I got rid of them all this minute. However, I do see quite clearly that America has a problem with guns. There are a lot of guns out there—I’m not going to say too many, but I am saying too many in the wrong hands. I will also say that the level to which some people fetishize their guns borders on a mental disorder.

To deny that America has a gun problem is to be delusional in the extreme.

Let me be clear: I don’t know what the solution is. The reason we have evolved this gun culture peculiar to America is historical. There is no easy fix. I do know (by my own reasoning; I’m not going to link to polls and academic studies) that limiting magazine capacities, expanding background checks and imposing registration (all of which I have no objection to) will make a very small dent at best in the number of gun killings. I also know that there is an obstacle that will hinder any legislation that will significantly and within reasonable time reduce the level of gun violence. That obstacle is called The Second Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is one of the most shoddily written pieces of legal text we have and practically begs for a wide range of interpretations, all the way from regulated militias, and only regulated militias (conveniently leaving out what constitutes a militia, much less a well regulated one) has the right to own guns, all the way to a free-for-all to own and carry whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. The current interpretation (by SCOTUS, the only one that counts) is that gun-ownership is a personal, individual right. My right (and yours) to own and carry firearms, is protected by the Constitution Of The United States. Do you begin to see why gun-control reform is an uphill battle?

I cringe when I hear fellow Liberals argue against guns, argue for stricter gun control laws, cry about dead babies, and in the same breath say they’re not for bans or abolishing 2A. This is cowardly, distasteful dishonesty at best, or downright stupidity at worst.

As long as The 2nd Amendment stands, there is zero chance of any meaningful change to our gun laws. So let me be the first Left-leaning gun owner to say: I support a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

I understand that it is a next-to-impossible task, but just like the obscene amount and importance of money in politics will always stand in the way of a functioning government, so will 2A always stand in the way of meaningful reform of our gun laws.

  • Get rid of money in politics or accept that our democratic institutions are bought and paid for by corporate interests.
  • Get rid of the second amendment or accept that mass shootings is the new normal.
Spot the difference.

Spot the difference.

For clarity: I am not advocating banning guns. I am simply pointing out that our problem with guns can’t be solved as long as the nation’s founding document specifically lists gun ownership as something akin to a natural right imbued in us by our Creator (don’t get me started). Personally, I see no good reason for a modern, advanced society in 2015 to have such a statute on the books. In 1791, yes. 2015, no. But that’s just me.

Election 2014 – Update On CT State Rep Dan Carter

Surprise, surprise, State Rep Dan Carter actually responded personally to my request for more information (read here) before I considered donating to his reelection campaign. I found his answer to be on point and satisfactory, and I will, in my first ever contribution to a political campaign, donate a small sum to Republican rep Dan Carter’s reelection campaign. His donation page is here.

Dan Carter <repcarter@gmail.com>

12:46 PM (4 hours ago)

to me
Hi Lars!

Great reply!

The honest truth: you contacted me during the gun debate last year. I figure you are probably supportive of the way I voted, so I am looking for all the help I can muster.

The manner in which the law was passed last year was a complete disgrace to our system. The plan was to have a true bipartisan effort to look at legislation that could be passed quickly and benefit our state, while leaving more controversial issues to the normal committee process. Unfortunately, the process was quickly hijacked by members in the majority who had long standing agendas. This type of legislation should NEVER be put through the emergency certified process.

I am the only member of the Newtown delegation to vote against the legislation. I won’t lie and say I didn’t feel the pressure, since people I had genuinely respected wanted me to vote for the gun bill and the anti-gun groups in Newtown and Redding were all over me. But, I am serving in office to do my very best to make decisions that are best for my constituents by supporting good, well-thought-out policy. The bill passed last year has no chance of saving a life. It only creates a costly system that affects the people who actually follow our laws, versus those who would break them.

More importantly, I really do believe you should have the means of defending yourself, your family, and our country. I have spent my lifetime supporting the ideals that have made our nation great. I do not intend to stop that now.

As for begging for money, that is exactly what I am doing. I assure you it is necessary, as there are well funded groups who would prefer I not return to Hartford.

I have tried to be as direct as possible. If you would like more information on other issues, please email me or call me on my cell at 203-917-5027. Please consider meeting me in person on Thursday.

Best regards,
Dan

My response to his reply:

Lars Dahl <mothballviking@gmail.com>

4:39 PM (35 minutes ago)

to Dan
Hi Dan,

Wow, so you’re THAT guy! I sent out quite a few emails to “my elected representatives” in the run-up to the new law and your name (like many others) I’ve forgotten since. But I do remember reading about you after the fact; the lone contrarian from Newtown. Good for you!

Just a few words so you may understand where I’m coming from and the perhaps terse tone of my initial response to your email.

I am a gun owner, but not a fanatic 2nd Amendment gun-nut cowering in fear of the tyrannical government. If the good people and the legislature of Connecticut genuinely think the world is a better place if I am only allowed to load 10 rounds into my pistol designed to hold 15, I can live with that and still have a fulfilling life.

I am also not a single-issue voter; there is more to life than guns. I will not hold a grudge against anyone who votes their true conscience, however much I might disagree. So you may have already guessed that your actual vote on the matter is of lesser concern to me than your opinion about the abuse of procedural rules. What took place in Hartford those few days disgusts me to the bone. Though expected, I was really disappointed in how the Democrats hijacked the whole process in a way that surely violates the spirit and principles behind Emergency Certification.

I used to be a registered Democrat, but since the debacle in question I have changed my voter registration to Unaffiliated. I imagine you and I disagree on quite a few things, but it is refreshing to encounter a politician who still possesses a spine and who dares to answer a direct question with a straight, no BS answer. You may be surprised to learn (or not) that most reply with a form letter at best, filled with empty blather.

I hear you on the “begging for money” thing. You can’t play if you’re not in the game. Just let it be known that in my personal opinion money in politics is the single biggest factor hindering America from getting back on an even keel. I will therefore not attend your fundraiser (principle, nothing personal), but you can look forward to a small donation through your web page.

Thanks for your replies, for taking the time to hear me out, and I hope you bear my thoughts and concerns in mind (surely, I can’t be the only one) wherever your political aspirations take you. For obvious reasons I won’t be voting for you in November, but nevertheless I wish you good luck (and I’ve never, ever, said that to a Republican before an election!).

Best regards,
Lars Dahl

The proof:dan carter donation

Election 2014 – The Begging Begins – State Rep Dan Carter Wants My Money

I just got an email from local politician Dan Carter of the Connecticut legislature:

Dan Carter <repcarter@gmail.com>

12:25 PM (53 minutes ago)
to me

Lars, I hope this email finds you well!

I am running for another term as representative in the State Legislature. While I am not your representative, I do represent Newtown. If you are happy with the job I am doing, I could really use your support.

I am having a fund raiser at the Putnam House in Bethel this Thursday, May 22nd, from 6pm to 8pm. Please reply to this email with an RSVP or regrets.

If you can’t make it, I have attached a contribution form that you could mail in, or you can use the link at the end of this email to contribute online. The maximum contribution I can accept is $100 per person, but any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to serving you for another two years.

Best regards,
Dan

Dan Carter
State Representative, 2nd District

dan carter ct state rep

Dan Carter, Connecticut State Rep.

My response:

Hi, Dan!

Thanks for contacting me on the matter of begging for my money.

I’ve never heard of you and don’t know the first thing about the job you’ve been doing. Please help me make up my mind whether or not to part with my hard earned money for your benefit by answering the following questions short and to the point. Any attempt at evasive, vacuous politician speech will be dismissed and I will double my contribution and give it to your opponent regardless of who that might be.

How did you vote on the changes to our gun legislation post Sandy Hook, and, regardless of how you voted, how do you feel about the manner in which the law was passed?

Looking forward to your prompt and sincere reply.

Regards,
Lars Dahl, concerned citizen and voter.

I will update when/if I get a reply.

Bye-Bye NRA

I got an e-mail today from the NRA. It started out as such:

Dear LARS:

Your NRA membership has officially expired. I’ve e-mailed you several times and I haven’t heard back from you.

If you have a problem with NRA that’s keeping you from renewing your membership, please let me know what it is, and I pledge to you that I’ll do whatever I can to fix it.

It was signed by Wayne LaPierre and there was more to it, but this is the part that mattered. Below is my response.

Dear WAYNE:

The NRA is no longer a single-issue organization (if it ever was). I have come to understand that you are a full-fledged political manipulation machine supporting candidates and values contrary to mine. There’s more to life than guns. I don’t define myself as a gun owner. I joined the NRA in the wake of Sandy Hook reacting to the dishonest argumentation from those you would call the “gun grabbers”. But your own rhetoric when arguing your case(s) is so dishonest, vile and vitriolic, and some of the spokespersons (e.g. Ted Nugent) you hold up so repulsive and beyond the extreme, that I choose not to be associated with you and your organization for my own good name and reputation’s sake and will not be renewing my membership.

Get back to me when you’ve addressed these issues and we can talk.

Lars Dahl

I will be severing my ties with the National Association For Gun Rights for the same reason. I still support Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL).

Connecticut: Lawsuit Filed in U.S. District Court Challenging Constitutionality of New Firearms Law

Not to sound repetitive, but I just want to make sure the word gets out that we’re not taking governmental abuse and overreach lying down. I’m not saying “from my cold, dead hands“, but I strongly oppose the manner in which, as well as the content of, Governor Dannel Malloy et al’s recent attempt to circumvent democratic process and undermine the 2nd Amendment. If you have an agenda, promote it openly, don’t try to sneak shit past the electorate with lies and deception. Just sayin’.

From my in inbox, courtesy of The National Rifle Association – Institute for Legislative Action:

Connecticut: Lawsuit Filed in U.S. District Court Challenging Constitutionality of New Firearms Law

Bridgeport, CT – Yesterday, a widely-anticipated lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, challenging the constitutionality of the new firearms law that was passed hastily by the Connecticut Legislature in response to the tragic shooting in Newtown by a disturbed individual. Despite this new law being called “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety,” Connecticut’s new firearms law makes Connecticut citizens less safe. This lawsuit seeks immediate injunctive relief and a ruling declaring the new law unconstitutional under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It alleges that Connecticut’s new firearms law violates the Second Amendment, and makes both citizens and law enforcement less safe by depriving citizens of modern firearms that are in common use throughout the country for self-defense.

Brought on behalf of individual gun owners, retailers and Second Amendment groups, this lawsuit seeks to vindicate the constitutional rights of citizens who are harmed by the broad prohibitions and unworkable vagueness of the new law. This legal challenge focuses on Connecticut’s ban of more than 100 additional commonly-owned firearms, demonizing design features that provide improved safety, accuracy and ease-of-use features, including magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. This lawsuit also challenges the practical bans imposed by the new law on an even broader array of firearms due to the new law’s vague language and interpretative confusion combined with severe criminal penalties.

Plaintiffs bringing this lawsuit include an elderly widow who lives alone in a rural area where the emergency response time of a lone resident trooper serving the area is 45 minutes, a Rabbi whose synagogue in the Bridgeport area was broken into by intruders, a young professional woman whose efforts to defend herself are made more difficult by the loss of an arm due to cancer, among other individuals. In addition, retailers whose businesses have been severely harmed by the law have joined this lawsuit, which was conceived and organized by fellow plaintiff organizations: the Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League (CCDL) and the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen. Both organizational plaintiffs represent large numbers of Connecticut citizens whose rights to own the firearms of their choice for self-defense and other purposes such as sports shooting and hunting has been infringed upon by the new law.

Bob Crook, Executive Director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, says, “This law will do nothing to prevent a tragedy or solve the problem of crime committed with guns. Instead of violating constitutional rights, we need to get serious about addressing violence and mental illness.” He continued, “Two recent independent studies by Pew and the federal government have just revealed that gun homicides are down almost 40% and general crime involving guns has dropped a whopping 70% since 1993, which corresponds with the elimination of the federal assault weapons ban. In contrast, the few areas of the country where gun crimes have increased dramatically are the very places where local or state governments have banned or severely restricted gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.”

This Connecticut lawsuit, along with similar legal challenges in New York and Colorado are expected to better define the extent of a responsible citizens’ right to own a commonly used firearm of personal choice for self-defense, defense of family and other lawful uses. Each of these states has enacted new firearms laws that, despite law-makers best intentions, make citizens and law enforcement less safe against criminals and the mentally ill who do not obey these laws.

Your NRA will continue to work in Connecticut and in other states across the nation to support and protect our Second Amendment rights.

PS
I realize that I may start to sound like a gun nut to some, and that I will have to diversify the targets of my ire to maintain my cred as a sane member of society. Stay tuned.

How Much Does Newtown Love Their Children? Part 2

As previously reported, voters in Newtown, Connecticut, rejected a town and school budget on April 23rd partly because $770,000 that was added for extra police and school security in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre Dec.14th. In a new referendum today the town budget passed, but the school budget failed. By 52 votes.

Snipped from the Newtown Bee:

Council Chairman Jeff Capeci said that the number of voters who responded to the corresponding budget question signaled they wanted to see additional reductions.

The next time you read that Newtown/Sandy Hook is a tight-knit community where everybody pulls together in times of unspeakable horror and meaningless tragedy, don’t believe it for a minute. It’s easy to arrange makeshift memorials and displays of paper angels on the roadside; easy to hang green and white balloons on fence posts and road signs throughout the town; easy to stick a green and white ribbon to the bumper of your car; easy to hold candle vigils and send thoughts and prayers. Symbols of sympathy come cheap, but when asked to actually put their money where their mouths are, the good people of Newtown are oddly tight-lipped.

How Much Does Newtown Love Their Children?

After the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut on Dec. 14th 2012, the entire nation has been up in arms about how this event was the tipping point, that we, as a nation, must take prompt and meaningful action to prevent future tragedies. If twenty dead children and six dead teachers doesn’t move us to take the necessary steps to protect our children, then we are all morally bankrupt. I firmly agree.

Politicians and activists all the way from the President himself down to grassroots activists on a local level, have made the rounds, parading parents of the victims around the country promoting stricter gun legislation, banning this and banning that, making teary-eyed speeches lobbying for “common sense” laws in the name of dead children.

On Tuesday April 23rd voters in Newtown rejected a budget that added $770,000 to the school and town budgets to hire extra police officers and unarmed security guards in all of the town’s private and public schools.

That’s how much Newtown loves their children.

Newtown is a fairly affluent town and the combined total of the school and town budgets were $111,000,000.

Virtual State Of The Union Speech – The Right To Self Defense

Food for thought. Not vouching for the statistics he quotes, but nevertheless interesting and a crafty way to state your case. I personally find it hard to disagree with a lot of what he says.