This is the reason that State Police Det. Ken Damato gives for the Connecticut State Police refusing to give manufacturers any guidance on what features of a firearm would be within the bounds of the state’s new gun control laws. He says, “Weâ€™re not arbiters of weapons construction.”
Such excuses are interesting considering that he then admits the same non-engineers who know so little about firearms are telling retailers what they can and cannot sell, and I have little doubt that these non-engineer/non-firearms experts will gladly arrest a citizen with a gun they claim they don’t really understand.
Of course, don’t expect any consistency out of the State Police on this issue. They will defend their absolute knowledge when it comes to arresting people, but not when it comes to assisting the firearms business in attempting to follow the law.
This reeks of Massachusetts-style attitudes. There are two sets of requirements that have to be met before handguns can be sold in Massachusetts, and Attorney General requirements are essentially handled the same way that the Connecticut State Police are behaving now. They tell manufacturers that they will not assist in judging compliance–unless, that is, you break the law. Then they will gladly go after you for the crime.
I remember a period of a few weeks when Glock decided to try legally selling in Massachusetts back in 2004 or so. The AG’s office, which would not provide guidance up until that point, just suddenly decided that they didn’t actually meet requirements and made them illegal to sell. If you want an idea of the kind of mess that Connecticut may be on the path toward by adopting Massachusetts-style attitudes on gun regulations, then check out this crazy page by a Massachusetts gun dealer that tries to explain what he can and cannot sell.
Even the Connecticut press seems to think this attitude that the State Police are refusing to help people abide by the law is too much. Granted, their solution is to make government bigger to answer more questions, but at least they acknowledge that there’s a problem when bureaucrats try to keep things vague for people trying to follow the law.