GUN CONTROL URGED: Who needs a rifle this powerful?, lawmakers ask

NEW HAVEN — The arrest of a Westville man for allegedly possessing illegal assault weapons and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 have given state lawmakers new ammunition in the contentious fight to regulate the powerful guns.

State and local police are continuing the search for the .50-caliber Barrett sniper rifle they believe Charles Cornelius, a 31-year-rold former prepschool student, illegally purchased in May.

Authorities seized at least four assault rifles, hand grenades, and white supremacist and hate literature during a search last week of his house.

"Terrorism isn't just bin Laden supporters," state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, said.

"It comes in all kinds of forms."

Lawlor, a gun control advocate, said Cornelius' arrest — and the realities of the world — should prompt the state legislature to consider more restrictions on these highpower weapons.

"Sept. 11 added a whole new dimension to the .50-caliber issue," said state Senate Majority Leader George C. Jepsen, DStamford, a longtime gun control advocate who is also running for governor. "There's a growing body of evidence that the .50-caliber is the weapon of choice for terrorists."

Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed a ban on the sale of incendiary and armor-piercing ammunition for such guns.

And while the gun Cornelius allegedly bought is specifically banned in state statute, other .50-caliber guns remain legal. However, legitimate collectors who purchased Barretts before 1994 can still possess them, according to statute.

Lawlor, cochairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, said lawmakers should consider banning .50-caliber sniper rifles or requiring their owners to register them with the state.

"If you shot a burglar with one of these guns, the bullet would go through him, through your door and into your neighbor's house," Lawlor said. "It would be liking using a bazooka."

However, not everyone agrees with the gun control legislators.

State Rep. Ron San Angelo, R-Naugatuck, a leading gun rights advocate, dismissed the terrorism argument as "silly" and accused Lawlor and Jepsen of scaring people for political gain.

"To me, this is more about politics than public safety," he said.

The state should instead focus on enforcing existing laws, San Angelo said, and should investigate how Cornelius was allegedly able to buy the model of .50-caliber rifle that is illegal in Connecticut.

San Angelo also noted that there have been no reported crimes in Connecticut involving .50-caliber sniper rifles, and very few involving assault weapons.

Felons armed with handguns commit the vast majority of gun crimes in the state, San Angelo said, and the state should crack down on them instead of passing new restrictions on legal gun ownership.

"We have to look at public safety in terms of what's really happening on the street," he said.

"We should use our resources to go after real problems."

The potent Barrett is a lightning rod, horrifying gun control advocates while at the same time it achieves iconic status among its enthusiasts. The rifle costs more than $7,000.

The longest-range confirmed sniper kill of the Gulf War was reported to have been made by a Barrett Model 82A1 at a range of 1,800 meters — nearly 2,000 yards, or almost 10 times the maximum effective range of a standard hunting rifle, said Tom Diaz, the author of a study on the weapon by the Violence Police Center, a gun control group in Washington.

"It's a hell of a gun," said Diaz. "This thing is actually almost a piece of light artillery."

According to Diaz, when Barrett introduced the gun to the civilian market in the early 1980s, the U.S. Secret Service argued unsuccessfully that the gun should be outlawed.

Barrett, meanwhile, has lobbied against attempts by "left-wing politicians and the media" to restrict or ban sales. The company argues that the weapon has a legitimate place in the sporting marketplace and has spawned widespread interest in long-range shooting competitions in the United States.

Meanwhile in New Haven, Cornelius remained jailed on $2.6 million bond and authorities plan to file additional charges in connection with the Barrett.

State police investigators have said they had no evidence that Cornelius had planned any attack. However, Cornelius apparently had animosity toward the private Hopkins School, which had expelled him when he was student there in the 1980s.

Sources said he was also planning to send hateful letters to some alumni.

Are there any historical texts that address the intended meaning? I found a few court cases:

"The arms which every person is secured the right to keep and bear (in the defense of himself or the State, subject to legislative regulation), must be such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State."
-State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458-59 (1875)

"The term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. ... The term 'arms' would not have included cannons nor other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."
-State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980)

"'The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed;' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State."
-Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846)

"The 'arms' referred to in the second amendment to the United States constitution are the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and they do not comprise dirks, bowie knives, etc., regulated by the legislature in the act..."
-English v. State, 35 Texas 473 (1872)

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people, and should not be whittled down by technical constructions. It should be construed to include all such 'arms' as were in common use, and borne by the people when this provision was adopted. It does not guarantee on the one hand that the people have the futile right to use submarines and cannon of 100 miles range, nor aeroplanes dropping deadly bombs, nor the use of poisonous gasses, nor on the other hand does it embrace dirks, daggers, slung-shots, and brass knuckles, which may be weapons, but are not, strictly speaking, 'arms' borne by the people at large, and which are generally carried concealed. The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the minds of those who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace the 'arms,' an acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their protection against the usurpation of illegal power-such as rifles, muskets, shotguns, swords, and pistols. These are now but little used in war, still they are such weapons that they or their like can still be considered as 'arms', which they have a right to 'bear.'"
-State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574 (1921)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I have to agree with most of what you say regarding the minimal usefulness of large weapons to a citizenry defending their rights against a tyranical government.

The experiences of the Afgan people may serve a useful lesson. Against the Soviets, the people were mostly with the resistance to the puppet government installed and defended by the Soviets, and the people won. Of course they did have stinger missles! But, serioulsly, they did not have them when the resistance began. Against the Alliance now, the Taleban don't have the support of the majority of the people, and they are losing (have lost?).

I kind of use as a model for resistance to tyranny a movie I saw about the Irish situation. A few freedom fighters used an inoperable pistol to take a police station, used those weapons to take an army storehouse, and so on. So, yes, fully automatic rifles and pistols. But a bullet proof vest and a night vision scope would be nice!

But my last word is "In PRINCIPLE, one should be able to legally buy a Stinger."

I agree 100% about the stupidity of banning bayonet lugs and hi cap mags. Bayonets pose about 0 additional risk to the general public. When was the last time you saw a home break-in or a gang drive-by with fixed bayonets? LOL! The flash supressor ban is right up there also. I did a little calculation that swapping 10 rd mags versus using 30 rd mags reduces the effective rate of aimed fire by only about 20%, which can't be argued to improve public safety in any significant way. And if a perp has the drop on me with a 10 rd mag in his gun versus a 30 rd, how does that help? Not to mention, if he is going to commit a crime anyway, why is he going to limit himself to 10 rd if he can get an illegal 30 rd mag? None of this makes logical sense.

But, unfortunately, perception is reality. These measures were enacted so that (stupid) people wouldn't be so scared of the big, bad assault rifles. And of course it was done so politicans would be seen as "doing something" about crime without having to actually do anything to criminals. It's easier to deal with law-abiding citizens than criminals who might shoot back.

Gordian Blade said: "But, unfortunately, perception is reality. "

Well, maybe. Being nice guys isn't gaining us much. I vote on one issue only. I vote at the polls, with my money, and soon I hope with my feet. There are estimates that over one hundred thousand Kalifornians own unregisterd "assault weapons". Anyone who doesn't see the dire unintended consequences of continuing to violate the Second Amendment in this way doesn't know history.

Prohibition of alcohol was perfectly legal because of the Constitutional Amendment which implemented it. It was a tremendous disaster for the people to have indulged themselves that way.

The violations of the Second Amendment are completely illegal and are probably hated by an even greater number of people than hated Prohibition.

Every action by the BATF is watched with dread by those of us who are thankful when the accused is captured alive and his family survives. How else will a sufficient number of cases find their way to the Supreme Court. Though there are some unsavory people who are targetted by the BATF, the mechanism of targetting could include almost anyone.

To paraphrase the bumper sticker - "The Constitution, including the Second Amendment, may not be perfect but it is far better than whatever it is that the government is using."

On another thread there is a discussion of a conspiracy to defraud the people of the US by submitting fake evidence regarding the presence of lynx in the forests of Washington State. The resulting environmental rulings would have deprived us of use of significant areas of public land.

It should come as no surprise that something like this happens after courts like the Ninth Circuit lie about the Second Amendment. This is the reason that I challenge people who see limitations just because it might be a good idea if they were there. I see no evidence that there were limitations intended to the Second Amendment.

Gordian Blade said: "These measures were enacted so that (stupid) people wouldn't be so scared of the big, bad assault rifles. "

Not exactly. First, the anti-gun people had to ask their media friends to play up every incident which might suggest that these rifles were somehow more dangerous than others, when they are not. Then the stupid people decided to fear them. And then the anti-gun politicians got to show how much they care by violating the Constitution. This scheme is being played out right now with respect to .50 caliber rifles. In the past it has been "assault weapons", "pocket rockets", and "Saturday Night Specials".

Without the complicit media, there is no anti-gun movement. That is why I cancelled my subscription to the local liberal rag. It is vital that they not receive my money to tell me lies and help deprive me of my rights.

The Dish I bought permits me to shut down the broadcast networks (except Monday Night Football) and watch Fox News.

These small steps multiplied by many millions of us is making a difference. I encourage all of you to do the same and to do it now.

Being nice guys isn't gaining us much.

How true these words! Unfortunately, most of us on the correct side of the 2nd Amendment issue have not yet figured out that trying to appease liberals by "throwing them a bone" doesn't work. If you give them a little, soon they want more.

It's a bit like the playground bully, my friends. Remember him? If you took a little bit of his hitting, kicking, spitting, he'd always be back to see what more humiliations he could inflict upon his hapless victim. The one time you got really mad and beat the snot out of him, he stopped coming back for more. And so it is with the gun grabbing crowd. If we continue to search for "middle ground" with these people, they will continue to steal what rights we have, albeit a little at a time.

While I appreciate Gordian Blade's thoughtful commentary, I think he is misguided, for he believes that our opponents on this issue are as intellectually and morally honest as we are. These people are not honest. These people want only power to control others, and they can't do it as long as we are armed. Total disarmament of civilians is their goal, and they are willing to be patient and do it a little at a time.

Are we willing to work to stop them? If not, why not just hand over our arms now?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.