Gun Rights in Connecticut

I recently decided to exercise my second Amendment rights and start collecting firearms.  My interests stem primarily in collecting antique weapons and I wanted to get my license to ensure that everything stays on the up and up.  I’d hate to come across something cool in my travels at the right price and be unable to pounce.

I don’t think my state wants people to have guns.  This should not be a surprise since Connecticut is a fairly liberal state.  It takes a long time and a lot of money to get a Concealed Carry (CC) license in Connecticut.  This is necessary to purchase pistols, but no license is necessary to purchase rifles and shotguns (these require a waiting period, which is shortened if the buyer has a CC license).  Note that the CC permit expires in five years.

I’m doing this post to give perspective to people in my state about the long and expensive struggle they will endure should they decide to pursue a CC permit here.  I’m also sharing this to show people in other states what it’s like here.  Note that I've maintained continuous residence in the state for nearly 20 years and have no criminal record.

Step 1 is to take a gun safety course.  The National Rifle Association (NRA) teaches these, and it was just a one-day class that cost $70.  This is a bargain for the class from what I’m told.

Step 2 is to fill out an application for a temporary permit and notarize it.  This can cost up $35 or more, but my bank did it for me for free.  Once I got it notarized, I had to take it to my local police station, at which time I got fingerprinted twice, once for the state and once for the federal background checks.  These cost $16.50 and $55, respectively.  In this digital era, I don’t’ see why this should have to happen twice, but I digress.  Then, there was a $70 application fee.   I lost a week between taking the class and getting the application submitted because the police department only does fingerprinting at certain times.  I submitted my application on August 25^th.  The smallest two checks were processed approximately two weeks later.  The third check was not processed until after I received my temporary permit. 

One interesting point came up as I was getting printed.  The officer told me that they saw a huge spike in applications leading up to the last presidential election and expected to see the same this time around.  They already were seeing an increase.  He also said the increase really began not within the past five years, but since 9/11 over a decade ago. 

Before 9/11, it would usually take a couple weeks to get this done, but it takes a couple months now.  Now, the private sector brain hears of this increase in process time and thinks to itself, “Let’s streamline this process and maybe wring out some costs.  We can at least try to keep the customer happy so they don’t go to the competition.”  The public sector brain, however, thinks to itself, “Why bother bringing this process into the 21^st century?  Not only do we lack a customer satisfaction constraint due to our monopoly on issuing gun permits and a profit incentive to minimize costs and time in the process (we don’t need to make money because we can always raise taxes), we don’t want the masses having guns, anyway.” This is a classic example of the contrast between private and public sector thinking.

Anyway, back on subject.  I didn’t receive my temporary permit until October 26^th.  Yes, it took nearly nine weeks (eight weeks and six days, to be exact) before I even received my temporary permit. 

From there, it took an additional four weeks plus an additional $70 check before I eventually received my full permit. To be fair, this additional four weeks is really only actually an additional week because the police department told me I had to wait a week before the state could process their temporary permit and I could go get my full permit.  The reason it took four weeks instead of one is simply because life got in the way and I was unable to get down there before then. 

In total, it took $281.50 (plus gas costs for all the driving) and over 10 weeks (ultimately 13 weeks because of my personal issues) from the start to receipt of my full permit.  The duration and cost of this process are thoroughly inexcusable.

Why am I sharing this?  I wanted to put my story out there so people in my state can see how long it takes and how expensive it is to exercise our Constitutionally-enshrined right to firearms.  I’ll leave aside the question of whether or not we should even have to have permits at all to obtain firearms (as well as my general views on guns) because that’s a whole other topic. 

Between the permit fees and the renewal fees (whatever those are in five years’ time) you can see that the cost of getting the permit alone matches that of a low-end firearm or hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rounds depending on caliber.  Also, I wanted to highlight how long it takes.  It should not take 10+ weeks in the 21^st century with all of our automation and networking.  It should not be necessary to go through three levels of government.  It should not be necessary to first obtain a temporary permit before obtaining a full permit.

The bottom line is the gun permit process is needlessly complex, expensive, and time-consuming.  This needs to be improved.

Does Obama Now Have a Mandate?

I’m seeing a lot of chatter about whether the 2012 election was a mandate for Barack Obama.  The pro-mandate crowd argues that Obama’s 332-206 electoral college victory and gains in both the House of Representatives and Senate prove a mandate.  They also argue that if the GOP could declare the 2004 election as a mandate, they can declare 2012 a mandate, too.  I’m going to burst some bubbles here.

Obama had a decisive electoral college victory, but in the popular vote, he only beat Mitt Romney by about 2.75% in 2012.  True, the popular vote means nothing to the results of the general election, but it is useful as an indicator of a mandate.  For context, Obama had a 365-173 electoral college victory in 2008 with a popular vote win of about 7.25%.  Obama gave back 4.5% of his popular margin from 2008 and lost ground in the electoral college.  No mandate claim can be legitimately made given this evidence of regression. 

The Democrats picked up seats in both houses of Congress, but, in the end, two key pieces of evidence weaken the mandate argument here, too.  The House of Representatives remains with the GOP, though the Democrats managed to pick up some seats.  Had the House gone back to the Democrats, they could try to claim a mandate.  It did not, and no mandate claim can legitimately be made here, either.

What about the Senate?  If we look at the Senate in the past two elections, we see that the Senate outcomes hinged more on poor GOP candidate selection than decisive victory for the Democrats.  The GOP has allowed at least five very winnable Senate seats to go Democrat between 2010 (Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Sharon Angle in Nevada) and 2012 (Todd Akin in Missouri, Richard Mourdock in Indiana, and Linda McMahon in Connecticut).  With a 53-45 (plus two independents that closer to the Democrats), you can see that these five seats are costly for the GOP.  It could be 50-48-2 for the GOP instead of 53-45-2 for the Democrats.  A win is a win whether the Democrats beat self-strengthened or self-weakened GOP, but the quality of the win does matter and, in this case, still hardly indicative of a mandate.  It does show that the GOP needs to do a better job of picking candidates, yet that’s all we can conclude.

But, the GOP claimed a mandate in 2004, so the Democrats are surely justified in claiming a mandate in 2012, right?  Not necessarily.  George W. Bush beat John Kerry by roughly 2.5% of the popular vote and by one state in the electoral college.  However, the GOP did retain the House and picked up four seats in the Senate to retain their majority there. 

Of the two supposed mandates, namely the GOP in 2004 and the Democrats in 2012, the GOP in 2004 is the stronger argument, but both fall shy.  2004’s razor thin electoral and popular victories for Bush prevent the 2004 mandate claim while the slightly thicker popular victory and failure to reclaim the House deny the 2012 mandate claim.

So, what does a mandate actually look like?  2008 is an example.  The Democrats picked up a whopping eight seats in the Senate to claim a majority at 55-41-2 while retaining the majority in the House.  You have to go back to the GOP in 1994 to see a party pick up that many Senate seats.  Also, as stated above, Obama beat John McCain with a 365-173 electoral college victory and a popular vote win of about 7.25%.  The Democrats easily retained the House and decisively won both the Senate and White House to gain full control.  That is what a single-party mandate looks like.  Of course, the Democrats followed through on that and proceeded to get trounced in 2010 because the people didn’t like what America looked like with the Democrats in full control, but that’s a whole other point.

A mandate here requires decisive victory for one party and full control of both the White House and Congress.  Most of the time, an election will be a call for bipartisanship or an attempt to put the brakes on a party in full control rather than a mandate.  

Here’s the bottom line.  It is more often a call for bipartisanship or a check on a party in power than a mandate.  2012 isn’t a mandate for the Democrats.  2004 wasn’t a mandate for the GOP.  2008 was a mandate for the Democrats.