It's a giant waste of money because it's trying to enact something that's already there.  It's a blatant case of politicians just picking a topic they think voters care about simply so more people will support them.

Aside from that, the law is actually vague and can actually affect any violent game.  For instance, Super Smash Bros Brawl could be considered a violent game since it has human character fighting human characters with "cartoon violence."  Too cartoony for you?  Fine, Street Fighter IV is rated T but it has a lot of violence in it and could be considered too violent for children.  Portal? Blood and mild violence, could be considered too violent.

Vague laws = bad.

Also, it isn't against the law for a 4 year old to go into a theater and see Saw IV, but movie theater self imposed regulations don't permit them to do that.  Same with buying Saw IV, there's not a law saying they can't buy the rated R movie, it's a self imposed regulation that Wal-Mart and other retailers follow.  The same is true for ESRB rated games.

This law changes things so games would be different from movies (which opens the door for a whole new can of worms).

Here are the last four paragraphs of the Gamasutra piece (the OP is hard to read and cuts off in my browser). If you read it you will see why the CT AG is involved (he is running for the Senate) and how little he understands (he wants a system like movies and music -- which would actually be a step backward for video games according to the FTC).

In addition to his participation as an amicus curae, Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who hopes to move to the U.S. senate after this year's midterm elections, issued a press release explaining his state's involvement.

"Protecting children from digital danger requires proactive parents -- but they need and deserve help," Blumenthal said. "The video game industry should act responsibly -- play nice, not nasty -- and agree to sensible self-imposed restrictions that block children from buying the most violent games. I am calling on the video game industry to follow the leadership of the motion picture industry, which sensibly stops unattended children from viewing violent or graphic movies."

In fact, the video game industry already maintains "self-imposed restrictions" in the form of the Electronic Software Ratings Board, which was recently praised by the Federal Trade Commission.

According to the FTC, the "video game industry outpaces the movie and music industries" when it comes to "restricting target-marketing of mature-rated products to children, clearly and prominently disclosing rating information, and restricting children's access to mature-rated products at retail."

This is all pure politics. Which makes it so unusual is that is crosses party lines.

Mike from Morgantown

Not really.  But it just shows how stupid this is, when the proposed law doesn't do the same thing for movies.  twesterm and the article itself have already pointed out how the game industry is in fact ahead of movies on this. 

I don't think anybody needs SWAT teams going after store clerks.  The current voluntary system is only failing where it is being broken by parents.  I'm okay with that. 

"DIGITAL DANGER" 

All we need to know about the credibility of this movement

Remind this next time you'll vote. And kick these old farts out.