To The Editor:

I was disappointed to see criticism of Representative Mitch Bolinsky for voting against Connecticut’s proposed Glock ban. Whether someone supports or opposes gun control generally, this particular proposal deserves honest scrutiny.

Connecticut already has a 10-round magazine limit. Supporters of the bill argue the ban improves public safety because certain pistols could theoretically be converted to automatic fire with illegal aftermarket devices. But those conversion devices are already illegal under federal law, and automatic weapons themselves are already heavily prohibited.

The practical question is simple: how much additional safety is actually gained?

With a 10-round limit already in place, the difference in discharging 10 rounds between rapid semiautomatic fire and illegal automatic fire is often only a fraction of a second. Even supporters of the bill acknowledge the focus is largely on the possibility of illegal modification, not on the firearm’s normal lawful operation. Given Brandon Moore’s background as a West Point graduate, Army officer, combat veteran, and Apache pilot, one would expect an understanding of the technical distinction between lawful semiautomatic firearms and illegally converted automatic weapons, which makes the practical effectiveness of this proposal a fair subject for public debate.

Like it or not, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” People may disagree on how that should be interpreted, but constitutional rights are not supposed to be selectively respected only when politically convenient.

If Brandon Moore wants to represent Newtown, voters should fairly ask what other constitutional protections he may be willing to limit or reinterpret in pursuit of political advantage or election support.

We should also ask Brandon what his solutions are for the actual causes of violence, not just the symptoms. What are his positions on mental health, keeping repeat offenders off the streets, strengthening education, supporting stable families, and addressing the deeper social problems that contribute to violence in the first place?

Reasonable people can disagree on gun policy, but legislators should not be attacked for asking whether a new law produces a meaningful real-world benefit or simply adds another layer of regulation on lawful owners while criminals continue ignoring existing laws.

Representative Bolinsky appears to have voted based on that distinction. Agree or disagree, that is a legitimate policy position deserving debate, not demonization.

David Landau

Newtown