Social Networks We Use


CT Tech Junkie Feed

Connecticut Consumers to Begin Receiving E-Book Settlement Refunds
Mar 25, 2014 4:09 pm
Connecticut residents will start receiving refund checks or credits this week for e-books purchased between April 1,...more »
Like New Jersey, Direct Retail Sales of Tesla Automobiles Not Allowed in Connecticut
Mar 19, 2014 12:24 pm
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection is co-sponsoring a contest for the auto dealership...more »

Our Partners


More Than Two Dozen Bills In Response To Newtown

by Christine Stuart | Jan 22, 2013 6:30am
(4) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Town News, Newtown, Health Care, Public Safety, State Capitol

The deadline to submit legislation has passed and so far Connecticut lawmakers have submitted an estimated 27 bills aimed at preventing gun violence and improving school safety and mental health.

The legislation is a response to the shooting that claimed the lives of 20 students, and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

There are currently eight bills that deal directly with school safety issues. The aim of the bills is to increase and improve school security to make schools more resistant to intruders.

All of the proposals call for an increase in funding safety improvements — a measure which has largely been left up to municipalities. Other ideas include increasing funding for school resource officers in elementary schools, and requiring schools to report to the state about intruder drills and lockdowns.

Currently, school systems require monthly fire drills which they can substitute with an intruder or lockdown drill once every three months.

However, there’s little disagreement based on preliminary details from the state police that there was anything the school could have done to protect itself from a gunman who blasted his way through the locked door with a semi-automatic rifle.

And even though state police officials and investigators have not confirmed that the gunman suffered from some form of mental illness, lawmakers have introduced a handful of proposals to enhance access to mental health services for both adults and adolescents.

Those who need help are “often times unable or unwilling in some cases to access the care that’s necessary,” House Speaker Brendan Sharkey said last week. “We have yet to know what the circumstances were behind the person who perpetrated the crime in Newtown, but I would hate to think that a family of means would have not accessed mental health services if that person was concerned with the stigma attached to it.”

What they do know, according to State Healthcare Advocate Vicki Veltri, is that the current system for mental health services is fragmented.

“Frankly, we have a three tiered system: for the uninsured, one for the publicly insured, and one for the privately insured. The state needs to adopt a vision of healthcare that allows all residents access to high-quality healthcare that takes the best of each system and eliminates the worst,” Veltri has said.

Some of the bills are addressed at the overall mental health system, while others are aimed at interventions for children and adolescents. Veltri hosted a public hearing last October where parents and providers testified about the difficulty children have getting in-home psychiatric care. Parents also testified about being denied coverage by private insurance companies for in-hospital stays after suicide attempts.

But by far the largest numbers of bills introduced fall under the category of violence prevention and gun control. Expectations that lawmakers would submit gun control bills drew about 1,000 gun owners opposed to such legislation to a rally at the state Capitol this past weekend.

NRA instructor Brooke Cheney was among those who spoke at the rally Saturday. She said that as a mother of two children ages five and six, she was heartbroken by tragedy in Newtown. But when she turned on the news in the days following the shootings, what she heard was mainly about guns.

“It was not about how to help the families in Newtown heal. It was not about how to help troubled youth. It was not about mental health concerns. It was about taking guns away from law abiding citizens or worse yet creating laws to make law abiding citizens into criminals,” Cheney said.

There are 14 bills dealing directly with firearms and ammunition, while a 15th bill calls for the creation of a task force to examine the “use of psychotropic drugs and incidents of mass shootings and the impact of violent media on episodes of mass violence.”

Some are more generic, like Senate Bill 1, which calls for the “strengthening” of the “sale, possession and transfer of firearms, assault weapons and ammunition.” It also calls for enhancing safety measures in schools.

Others are more specific, like the one proposed by Rep. Matthew Ritter, D-Hartford, who calls for any gun owner to acquire an insurance policy in order to obtain a firearm. The purpose of the bill is to “ensure adequate financial resources to compensate victims of gun violence.”

Sen. Majority Leader Martin Looney proposed a bill to prohibit anyone who isn’t legally allowed to own a firearm from purchasing ammunition. Then there’s Sen. Ed Meyer’s bill that would prohibit anyone from owning a gun with the capacity to hold more than one one bullet at a time.

Still others like the one submitted by Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, would prohibit individuals from possessing magazines with more than 10 rounds and would re-classify as an assault weapon the semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle used in Newtown. Bye also has introduced legislation calling for a 50 percent tax on ammunition, making her an immediate foe of gun enthusiasts and hunters.

There’s also the proposal by Rep. Stephen Dargan, D-West Haven, to make the names and addresses of gun permit holders available under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. The information was available before 1994, but a legislative compromise on stricter gun laws ensured it would be confidential going forward.

There were at least three gun bills introduced by a Republican lawmaker.

Rep. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, called for streamlining the temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver. He also proposed a bill that would increase the penalty for criminal use of a firearm or electronic defense weapon from a class D felony to a class C felony. And he called for the state to enact a law that gives the benefit of the doubt to any \person who uses deadly force to repel an intruder.

That’s not to say this is the end of the proposed bills. Committees are allowed to draft their own bills collectively. The committee deadline isn’t until the second week in February for a majority of the committees.

The bipartisan legislative task force has until Feb. 15 to find consensus on proposals it wishes to see taken up by the House or the Senate.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(4) Comments

posted by: sparkplug | January 22, 2013  11:52am

Rep. Matthew Ritter, D-Hartford, who calls for any gun owner to acquire an insurance policy in order to obtain a firearm. The purpose of the bill is to “ensure adequate financial resources to compensate victims of gun violence.”

Oh this is classic. Now people will be punished for “pre-crimes”. I wonder if Representative Ritter is aware of the fact that more people are murdered by hammers and clubs each year than by firearms. Is he going to require owners of hammers to buy insurance as well? Of course not. He’s doesn’t care about murders by hammers because he can’t make political hay out of it. He’s your typical self-serving politician looking to pass ANYTHING that might improve his chances of re-election, even if it enters the realm of absurdity.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | January 22, 2013  12:45pm

It’s a shame that the newtown tragedy has politicians feeling as though they must do something.  Guns are fired every week, at times every day, in our cities yet we did nothing. Now, a tradegy of unspeakable proportion has our part time, neophyte legislature grasping for a response.

If you really look at the proposed legislation, with the exception of Myers’ single shot bill which has got to be intended to be purposefully absurd, few among them make any sense at all if the aim is to make us safer. Those that address mental illness and the availability of weapons to those diagnosed with such are certainly of merit.  As is any proposal to require a psychological test as a requirement for a permit.

But it is pure folly to publish names of permit holders, tax ammo more, require insurance, and the like. The challenge is to make us safer without punishing law abiding gun owners and all the afore mentioned proposals do just that, punish. Don’t waste our time and resources.

Psyche tests, stiffer sentences for crimes commited with guns, are both good ideas and perhaps we start there.

Making us safe is what we want. Feel good worthless legislation is what we don’t want. It’s all pretty simple. Now, we got economic and jobs issues.

Get to work.


posted by: Chien DeBerger | January 22, 2013  7:04pm

Interesting that Rep. Ritter would propose such a requirement as it only makes it harder for the poor to be able to defend themselves. Since they are victims in much higher proportions in the inner city neighborhoods, like Hartford. Way to go Matt!

posted by: sparkplug | January 23, 2013  8:41am

As is any proposal to require a psychological test as a requirement for a permit.

Actually DrHunter I think this is a really bad idea.

Here’s what would happen:

Have you ever had an argument with your wife? Yes? Sorry, you’re ineligible.

Do you have any minor children in the house? Yes? Sorry, you’re ineligible.

Have you ever been angry at a coworker? Yes? Sorry, you’re ineligible.

Do you think abortion is wrong? Yes? Sorry, you’re ineligible and must report to a re-education facility at Gitmo immediately.

Let’s face it. Most psychologists and social workers lean far left to begin with, so even if the government didn’t define the criteria, 99 percent of law abiding citizens would be deemed a potential threat by the craziest of crazies.

I think a more reasonable approach is the process we have now for getting a carry permit:

Are you the subject of a protective order? Yes? Sorry, you’re ineligible.

Have you been found guilty of a violence-related misdemeanor or felony? Yes? Sorry, you’re ineligible.

Are you currently under the supervision of a psychologist for violent behavior? Yes? Sorry, you’re ineligible.

This is one that isn’t asked for a carry permit but should be:

Are your currently on any psychotropic drugs that may result in violent thoughts, including suicide? Yes? Sorry, you’re ineligible until such time that said medications are no longer required.