The Passive-Aggressive Dannell Malloy

Connecticut’s governor Dannell Malloy is proposing quadrupling fees for carry permits, as well as raising fees for background checks by 50%:

As part of his budget, Malloy is proposing to increase the state portion of the pistol permit fee from $70 to $300. He also is proposing the cost of the initial 5-year pistol permit fee from $140 to $370.

The increase in fees for gun owners will bring in another $9 million to the state annually, according to the governor’s budget estimates.

Additionally, Malloy is proposing to increase background check fees from its current $50 to $75.

Malloy has, of course, been merely the latest of a series of liberal governors that have spent the last couple of decades turning Connecticut – a state that is home to four of America’s wealthiest cities, a place that by all rights should be financially well-set – into a fiscal basket case, a green fiscal Detroit, a place with the highest per-capita state debt in the country, with a business climate that under decades of stultifying Democrat rule has gone from one of America’s best states for business to the very, very bottom of the pile.

His idea to balance his $3,7 billion deficit?  Raise about $9 million in fees for shooters, thereby making it harder for the poor to protect themselves.

How passive-aggressive is that?

12 thoughts on “The Passive-Aggressive Dannell Malloy

  1. vivid proof that Progressives are not actually anti-gun they just believe that only an approved and credentialed elite should have guns and everyone else can defend themselves with the rocks and clubs that are more natural to them anyway.

  2. A tip for the governor: Say it’s for infrastructure enhancements. Don’t elaborate. Media will stand with you.

  3. The main photo is hilarious – worst collection of junk I’ve seen since the Minneapolis gun buy-back last year – belongs in the Old West display case at Wall Drug. But the embedded video is even worse. There’s one weapon that looks like an Uzi, the rest are old pistols but there are a couple of beautiful side-by-side shotguns chopped down, the detective runs his finger over the engraving in admiration. The true crime was mutilating these classics.

  4. What about the disproportionate effect on the poor in accessing their constitutional right? Isn’t that the argument against those expensive voter ID cards?

  5. MP – being unfamiliar with the Evening Standard I assumed, based solely on the juxtaposition of the headline with that photo, that it was a satirical newspaper. I read the rest of the article awaiting the punchline that never came – just sad realization.

  6. MP–thanks. I’m guessing half of those are black powder weapons, mostly nonoperational and haven’t been fired for at least 70 years.

    Why aren’t the AKs that British thugs are increasingly using being turned in? :^)

  7. Isn’t there a SCOTUS decision that found increasing costs to limit access to a constitutional right is unconstitutional?

    Why is it, when they are not waterboarding it to get the answer they want, reprobate leftists feel so free to flagrantly violate it? Cops can be held to account for violating civil rights, is there a mechanism to make politicians pay?

  8. Yeah bubba, I know about that one. I’m thinking more along the lines of waking up, face down on a cell floor.

  9. I’ve been reading a little bit lately about the Obama admin’s decision to stop SS recipients who have been found disabled from passing a background check. Apparently Trump is going to drop the rule, or has already. It looks like the gun grabbers are going to make a big deal about this, twice in the last 24 hours I’ve seen articles that refer to this as the GOP and NRA to give guns to crazy people.
    It seems to me that this is a ploy that is going to have the gun grabbers shooting themselves in the foot (har!). None of the articles I’ve read on this at Lefty sites (The NY Times was one) mentioned the 2nd amendment. They did mention the number of the affected: 74,000.
    Now it should be easy to cast a counter argument that bureaucrats should not be able to strip 74,000 people of a constitutional right by administrative rule — not even a hearing will be held before the person is placed on the no-gun list. This is an argument that will appeal not just to gun owners, but to average Americans. Lately average Americans have shown a lot of suspicion about the rule of bureaucrats.

Leave a Reply