Nigerian insurtech startup CompareIN are heading to Yale University in Connecticut in the US, after winning $150 000 at the inaugural VentureClash Lagos, a pitch competition organised by US-based venture capital firm Connecticut Innovations. The news …
Ways to shoot your gun faster have been around for ages now. They’re nothing new, and prior to Las Vegas, they were almost never used in a crime of any sort, so far as I’ve been able to tell. They were toys slapped onto guns to amuse people as they wasted ammo at a range day and not much else.
In Connecticut, though, they’re now history.
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat with a long history of advocating gun control measures, signed a law on Thursday outlawing a variety of firearm accessories.
The proposal, HB 5542, creates a new felony for the sale and possession of a “rate of fire enhancement” as defined under the new law. It was approved last month in the state House 114-35 and the Senate 26-10, with Dems pushing hard for the bill.
“This should be the law throughout the entire country,” said Malloy during a press conference that included gun control advocates, high school students and lawmakers. “There is no reason why anyone needs to own a device that can fire 90 bullets every 10 seconds but for the mass killing of people.”
I’m going to interrupt here and mention that my initial reactions to Malloy’s comments are, well, unprintable. I’m a professional, and I try not to use that kind of language when I’m working. I’m sure you can imagine.
However, I will add that “need” is irrelevant when it comes to our rights. There’s no need for Malloy to pontificate on what he thinks the laws in the rest of the country should be, yet there he is anyway. See how that works?
The same is true with “rate of fire enhancements.” I shouldn’t have to illustrate a need to have something.
Anyway, back to the story.
The new law, now Public Act No. 18-29, defines a “rate of fire enhancement” as any bump stock, binary trigger, trigger crank or similar device and makes it a Class D felony under Connecticut law to manufacture, own, possess, sell or transfer one. Violators could face five years in prison and a fine up to $5,000. There is no route to legal ownership or grandfathering of devices already in circulation in the state, leaving those with one on their hands until October to comply with the law.
It doesn’t appear that shoelaces or rubber bands, both of which can be used for bump fire, are covered under this bill.
Or do those not count because people “need” those?
The truth is, Connecticut and most other states have no issue with these devices. They’ve never seen a problem with them within their borders. The nation has seen precisely one. It was horrific, but these aren’t commonly used for crime, and it’s beyond time to stop pretending anyone is safer from a law like this.
It should be noted that despite the availability of such devices since Las Vegas, not a single other mass shooter using an AR-15 style rifle has used bump fire.
In other words, Malloy and his ilk are doing nothing but waving the flag to their fellow travelers, signaling how they care so hard.
In the meantime, work that went into this could have been devoted to doing something that might actually make life better for Connecticut’s citizens.
The post Connecticut Bans ‘Rate Of Fire Enhancements’ On Firearms appeared first on Bearing Arms.
San Francisco Creates Data Homage to Mayor Ed Lee San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee passed away late last year while he was still holding office at the age of 65. Lee, who was San Francisco’s first Asian-American mayor, was a popular leader widely lauded for …
The U.S. Department of Interior has issued one of two approvals needed for the construction of a Connecticut casino proposed by two federally recognized Native American tribes hoping to compete with a new Massachusetts casino.
“A true Englishman,” Jules Verne once quipped, “doesn’t joke when he is talking about so serious a thing as a wager.”
After the Supreme Court’s ruling two weeks ago effectively legalizing sports wagering, Americans, too, are starting to take gambling seriously, both inside and outside the world of sports.
In Murphy v. NCAA, the Supremes held by a 7-2 margin (more or less) that a congressional act forbidding state legislatures from authorizing sports gambling violated the “anti-commandeering” doctrine of the Tenth Amendment and therefore was unconstitutional.
Under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1991 (PASPA), instead of prohibiting sports gambling outright, Congress declared it “unlawful” for a state to “advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact . . . a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme” based on competitive sporting events.
In 2011, voters in New Jersey approved a state constitutional amendment authorizing just that, and the following year, the state legislature formally authorized sports betting. Shortly thereafter, the major sports leagues and the NCAA challenged the legislation in court, arguing it was barred by PASPA. New Jersey countered that PASPA itself was unconstitutional because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from “order[ing] the State to regulate in accordance with federal standards” — a principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
After further judicial and legislative maneuverings, the case found its way to the Supreme Court, where Justice Alito, writing for the majority, explained that the anti-commandeering doctrine derives fundamentally from the Framers’ “decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States.” This “structural protection of liberty” helps “promote political accountability” and “prevents Congress from shifting the costs of regulation to the States.”
And in the case of PASPA, the high court held that by purporting to tell legislatures not what they must affirmatively do but what they must not do, Congress overstepped its bounds and violated the doctrine.
Thus, New Jersey and the 49 other states found themselves suddenly liberated to enable sports betting within their borders. Anticipating the ruling, several states, including New York, West Virginia, Connecticut, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania, did exactly that. Another 15 states have taken steps in this direction.
But the Supremes’ Murphy decision nevertheless left sports fans and others alike wondering whether sports will benefit or suffer from the ruling.
Predictably, libertarians celebrated, and with good reason. Americans are already betting enormous sums of money on sports, they reckoned, so why not legalize it outright and at least capture some tax revenue?
According to statistics cited by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, while Americans legally wagered nearly $5 billion in 2017, they bet $123 billion per year on sports, almost all illegally. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of states conduct lotteries and permit some form of casino gambling, generally on Indian reservations.
But doesn’t widespread, legalized sports gambling run the risk of interfering with the integrity of games? Worse, wouldn’t the prospect of, say, in-seat touchscreens in sports arenas, on which spectators could place bets on all aspects of the game they’re watching, ruin the stadium experience?
The four major sports leagues, which had joined the NCAA in the original suit against New Jersey, wasted little time in calling for uniform national standards, with the National Basketball Association emphasizing that “the integrity of our game remains our highest priority” and the National Football League reportedly “focusing on getting paid for selling rights to its own data and video footage — intellectual property that legal betting operators will want to pay for in order to help them set lines and prop bets.”
What also remains uncertain is whether sports wagering will benefit local and state coffers.
Interestingly, misery and ecstasy have blended on the Strip: Las Vegas sports bookmakers stand to lose big as the city’s juggernaut National Hockey League expansion team, the Golden Knights, has overcome tremendous odds to reach the Stanley Cup Finals.
In addition, a 2016 report from the State University of New York’s Rockefeller Institute found that “state authorizations and promotions of gambling offer little long-run relief to state revenue problems” because while “new gambling activities may generate short-run increases in public revenues . . . these increases are getting smaller and their duration shorter, perhaps as more and more states compete for a limited pool of gambling dollars.”
Thus, many questions remain as we enter the brave new world of sports gambling. Jules Verne wasn’t joking around.
Sears Holdings Inc. will close an additional 40 stores — 31 Sears stores and nine Kmart stores — nationwide this summer, Business Insider reports. Sears Holdings spokesperson Howard Riefs would not confirm the number of closings but said none are in …
Today, there are five Balducci’s stores in New York and Connecticut. Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking died on Wednesday, March 14, 2018, at his home in Cambridge. He was 76. Hawking, who was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS …
Former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland (R) “is a free man again after serving his second prison sentence,” the Connecticut Post reports.
“Rowland, who turned 61 the day before his release, was convicted in 2014 of election fraud and obstruction of justice for hiding his political consulting roles in two campaigns. He began serving a 30-month sentence in fall 2016, at a minimum security prison camp in Pennsylvania.”
“It was his second stay in federal prison. Rowland’s 2004 federal corruption conviction also led to his incarceration, and to the state’s landmark public campaign financing program.”
But he pointed to the school’s cohort default rate, a measure of the percent of students who are graduating, finding jobs and paying off their debt, which has remained stable for more than a decade. That is a “good indicator of the value of the degree we …
A jury ruled a Connecticut man not guilty on all three counts of first-degree sexual assault after the defendant showed his penis in court to demonstrate that it did not fit the description of the woman who said he raped her, The Washington Post reported on Sunday. Defense…