Dannel's Logic is Shot

It's well-documented that Dannel Malloy (D, Connecticut) is the worst Governor in the nation.  For a state that leans pretty far to the left, you would think that a man who was once a dream Governor for leftists would be a little more well-liked, but he has the second-worst approval rating (26% per morningconsult.com) out of all of the nation's Governors.  The only Governor in the nation with a worse approval rating is Sam Brownback (R, Kansas), probably because people in Kansas like his last name less than people like Malloy's first name.  That dude is the only person I know of named Dannel.  I wonder if his parents named him Daniel but legally changed his name when he just kept spelling his name wrong on all his papers when he was a kid.  But mostly I'm just here today to talk about why his proposed gun permit fee increases are dumber than his name.

In large part because of Malloy's fiscally irresponsible policies during a time in which the economy has supposedly been improving, Connecticut is estimated to end up with a nearly two billion dollar budget deficit in the next fiscal year.  Naturally, as a leftist, one of the solutions he's come up with to help chip away at the deficit is to make people with guns (or those who want to obtain them legally) pay more money to have permits for these guns.  He wants renewal fees for pistol permits (which are good for five years) to more than quadruple, from $70 to $300, he wants first time permits to be issued for $370 instead of $140, and he wants background checks to obtain a permit for the first time to go up to $75 from $50 (per New Haven Register article).  The knee-jerk reaction for many leftists?  Cheers.  Yeah, stick it to those damn gun owners exercising their first amendment in a way in which it was never intended, right!?  Well, let's follow what this policy would actually do if implemented...

People who would not be impacted by this policy?  Criminals who obtain guns illegally anyway.  People who would be impacted by this policy?  Citizens who legally obtain guns and gun permits as required by the state of Connecticut, in order to exercise their rights.  And further breaking that down, is the fee hike really going to impact rich people?  No.  Not at all.  Middle and upper-middle class?  Not really.  I mean, it's a slight annoyance.  I consider myself part of that group, and I'm not happy that I may have to pay a few hundred dollars extra every five years for a permit renewal of my God-given right, but it's a minor inconvenience for me.  Not a big deal.  That leaves the poor and the lower-middle class, who disproportionately live in more dangerous areas and are disproportionately minorities.  Malloy is either out to get these people, hasn't thought this through, or doesn't care about the consequences as long as it gets money to the state and looks like he's being "tough on guns."  My guess is the third option here, maybe the second.

The main problem is that the poorest people in the state who want to own guns, probably in large part for home defense, would have three options if Malloy's proposal were to pass: pay for the permit even though you can't really afford it and may have to forfeit other important things, don't pay for the permit and don't get a gun, or don't pay for the permit and possess a gun anyway (possible future felony conviction).  I don't really see another option there with the proposal as-is.  But hey, leftists are all about giving away things for free, right?  If healthcare should be free for those who want it but can't afford it and college education should be free for those who want it but can't afford it, shouldn't guns and gun permits be free for those who want them and can't afford them?  I mean, healthcare and college education aren't even mentioned in the bill of rights, but the right to bear arms is the second amendment.  Access to buying guns and gun permits doesn't mean you're guaranteed to have guns and gun permits, right?  And no, I don't think that's the actual solution, but see my point?

The same amount of money can be raised by the state via a much, much, much smaller increase in the cost of driver's license renewals every six years (except that driving is a privilege, not a right).  Or, you know, maybe we wouldn't have such a mountainous deficit if Malloy and company didn't scare away businesses and do such a shitty job running the state in the first place.  Connecticut is already one of the worst states in the nation for taxes and fees.  The solution isn't to make that worse.  The solution is to fix the problems that cause the state to hemorrhage money.  And yes, it's a damn shame that we have some of the most insanely wealthy and incredibly poor areas in the whole nation within our tiny state.  If you don't believe me, try comparing Bridgeport public schools with public schools in Westport or Greenwich, just a short drive away.  Stark contrast.  Sad!  (Shout out to Trump tweets.)

Whatever we're doing here isn't working and is rotten to the core.  Maybe it's time for the right, the left, and everyone in between to get together and come up with some real solutions to enact positive changes in the state.  Finding more and more ways to charge Connecticut residents money that the state squanders isn't fixing the problems we have.  We'll just keep piling up deficits.  It's like a doctor prescribing pain pills to treat a torn ACL instead of performing surgery to fix the torn ACL.  And also the doctor is making it harder for you to exercise rights you have that he isn't particularly fond of.  Especially if you're poor.