CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

Sandy Hook Commission Issues Interim Report

by | Mar 18, 2013 12:00pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Public Safety

Christine Stuart file photo After more than 40 hours of expert testimony, the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission issued an interim report that includes a controversial recommendation to ban high-capacity magazines with 10 or more bullets and guns that can shoot them.

The commission recommended “Instituting a ban on the sale, possession, or use of any magazine or ammunition feeding device in excess of 10 rounds except for military and police use.”

According to the report, the commission recognized that certain sporting events may at times seek to utilize higher capacity magazines. However, the consensus of the commission was that the spirit of sportsmanship can be maintained with lower capacity magazines.

The 16-member commission was convened by the Gov. Dannel P. Malloy as a response to the Dec. 14 shooting that claimed the lives of 20 first graders and six adults. Its recommendations include banning guns which are capable of shooting more than 10 bullets at a time.

Some of the draft recommendations the group approved go further than the proposals being discussed by either the governor or the legislature.

“As you know, I have proposed and the General Assembly is considering a set of strong, common sense measures that include universal background checks, stricter firearm storage requirements, restrictions on the size of magazines, and a total ban on the sale or purchase of many dangerous weapons, including the weapon used in the Sandy Hook massacre,” Malloy said in a statement. “While I do not advocate a retroactive ban on the possession of firearms that are legally owned under current law, there are residents of our state who support such measures, and their views, along with the views of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, have a place in this conversation.”

While Malloy supports a ban on high-capacity magazines, legislative leaders seem to be leaning away from the measure.

Last week, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, called out legislative leaders for allegedly waffling on the issue behind closed doors.

According to the group, legislative leaders are discussing “grandfathering” existing high capacity ammunition magazines. The group sent a letter to lawmakers calling anything short of a complete ban “intolerable.” The press release included a letter citing legal precedent for taking property.

Robert Crook, executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, said the measure to ban guns that accept 10 round magazines turns all “semi-automatic hand guns into paperweights.” He said they didn’t distinguish between tubular magazines or detachable magazines either, which means they’re “essentially banning all guns.”

“It bothers me governor’s task force didn’t include any firearm experts,” Crook said.

Meanwhile, the Sandy Hook Commission also recommended mandatory background checks for the sale or transfer of any firearm, including long guns, at private sales and gun shows. It recommended regular renewal of firearm permits, including a test of firearm handling capacity as well as an understanding of applicable laws and regulations.

“The commission has found that firearms of significant lethality can be legally obtained without permit and without registration,” the report states. “According to the Connecticut State Police, there are approximately 1.4 million registered firearms in the State of Connecticut, and possibly up to 2 million unregistered firearms.”

Legislative leaders will meet again today to see if they can reach consensus on an emergency certified bill upon which the General Assembly can vote in the near future. 

The commission’s recommendations are based on the hearings that have focused on school security, gun violence prevention, emergency management planning and response, and school crisis response. The commission, which has not discharged its duties just yet, will continue meeting Friday, March 22, to begin tackling the state’s mental health delivery system.

“I appreciate and look forward to seeing the results of the commission’s continued work,” Malloy concluded. “They must still examine some very tough but very critical issues, including mental health. Making Connecticut a safer state will take comprehensive reforms, and I believe the commission, under the management of Scott Jackson, will produce a road map to achieving that goal.”

On the school safety front, the commission recommending that all classrooms in K-12 schools be equipped with locking doors that can be locked from the inside by the classroom teacher or substitute. It also recommended requiring that all exterior doors in K-12 schools be equipped with hardware capable of implementing a full perimeter lockdown.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(27) Archived Comments

posted by: sanecitizen | March 18, 2013  1:26pm

It’s borderline pathetic that this ten round limit keeps getting trotted out and made to appear as if there is some sort of scientific or study based support for this round count.

It’s a completely arbitrary number proposed by bill Ruger in the 80s in an attempt to save his own guns from the federal chopping block.

Perhaps the the commission did some actually research instead of just regurgitating the CAGV wish list people might take them seriously.

posted by: ad_ebay | March 18, 2013  1:33pm

Cool photo…can’t see Dannel’s hand pulling the strings.

posted by: Noteworthy | March 18, 2013  2:08pm

The members of this commission must have PTSD. That’s the only way any one member, or as a group, they would suggest a level of draconian regulations like this. Malloy must be proud of this group which now becomes the most extreme, and will make whatever is eventually adopted, look like a gift.

posted by: ad_ebay | March 18, 2013  2:12pm

Read the report…what convoluted claptrap! 

“According to the 2011 Connecticut Uniform
Crime Reporting Program, only two (2) of 94 firearm-related homicides in the state were
committed with a rifle or a shotgun. It is the consensus of the Commission that firearm lethality
is correlated to capacity, a correlation borne out not only in Sandy Hook Elementary School, but
in other violent confrontations in and beyond Connecticut.” 

Huh?  The firearm that DIDN’T commit the crime is the one to control?  What are they smoking? 

The only “expert” on firearms (UCONN Chief) was shouted down when asking about “proposed” changes.

posted by: bgmg | March 18, 2013  3:02pm

This is just getting way out of hand. Why don’t these idiots just come out and say the truth. They want all firearms gone.

Very nice to have a group of people telling us what to do but have no experts on firearms. One sided all the way. I just hope just one of these morons someday are praying for a gun to use to defend them selfs or waiting for a good guy with a gun to save there life. Oh but wait there will not be any if they have there way.

posted by: Quiet eye | March 18, 2013  4:11pm

Canada actually repealed their long gun registration and no longer requires it.  The cost was over a billion dollars to maintain each year, and itch as not even being used by the police. It also had no affect on crime. 
So why is CT. Stuck on gun registration??  Because it sounds good. 
This committe was the biggest waste of time I have seen.  There was no debate on any issue, no facts were shown on how many crimes had been stopped by citizens who carried a gun legally and were there at the time the criminal was in the act of trying to kill another person.
These recommendations are racist, sexist, and discriminate against the middle class who now can’t afford or are prohibited from exercising their state rights, and constitutional rights.
I see a major Supreme Court case here.

posted by: Fisherman | March 18, 2013  6:19pm

1)Not even a stich of attention paid in this report to the subject of Mental Illness.  Why? Because nobody wants to be the “bad guy”… The subject of mental illness requires WORK… so “they’ll get to that part later…. 
2) Malloy stated: “While I do not advocate a retroactive ban on the possession of firearms that are legally owned under current law… “ but he has repeatedly stated that he WILL authorize the taking of currently-owned firearms IF the owner does not meet the new standards for ownership.
Sounds like he’s intent on taking them.

posted by: Joebigjoe | March 18, 2013  7:03pm

All classrooms to be locked from the inside?

Yeah that will stop a killer

I will also bet that there will be an unintended consequence of that.

How about a unique idea that we train law abiding gun owners to guard schools at no cost to the towns. Rather than take away our rights how about having us exercise them in a way productive to society.

Nahh that won’t work because when the school shootings cease then there is no outcry to ban guns

posted by: JH_1 | March 18, 2013  8:31pm

This panel was a joke from the beginning. It’s completely biased. The gun recommendations are very detailed, yet the school safety recommendations can all be summed up as follows - 1) Lock doors & 2) create new commission / panel /tools to suggest how to better respond to threats and strengthen school security.

And what about the mental illness problem? According to this group, mental health will be looked at in more detail through out the rest of this year. It doesn’t take a scientist to know that means it’ll never happen.

This is the problem I have with everything going on. The real issues aren’t being addressed. Nearly every recommendation has been purely politically motivated. Most of the recommendations will likely pass and the state officials will high five each other, pat each other on the back and say “we did it”, but the downside is they will have created a false sense of security because no one will not be any safer.

It’s truly a shame that the recommendations for something as serious as gun violence can be so politically motivated.

posted by: BrianO | March 18, 2013  8:33pm

The Canadian Firearms Registry was part of the Firearms Act and was managed by the Canadian Firearms Program of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). It required the registration of all restricted and prohibited firearms in Canada. It was introduced by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 1993 and implemented by successive Justice Ministers Allan Rock and Anne McLellan. The net annual operating cost of the program, originally estimated to be $2 million, is reported to be $66.4 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.

Billions of dollars?  And by the way, Canadians don’t shoot each other the way we do.

posted by: sanecitizen | March 19, 2013  8:40am

You can’t cherry pick one year of operating costs and pretend that’s the entire cost of the operation; there is a subtle difference.

The act, including creation and maintence, cost 2.7 billion by the time the long gun registry was scrapped.

From 2003 to 2010 there were 5,000 murders in Canada, 1,500 were committed with firearms, and of those 1,500, only 45 registered firearms were traced using the registry.  The RCMP was unable to say any of those cases derived a benefit from the registry because in nearly all cases the accused was already known.

2.7 billion spent with no substantive benefit?  Canada has already realized this was a waste of funds and we would do well to heed the lessons their taxpayers already funded.

posted by: DirtyJobsGUy | March 19, 2013  9:27am

Dear BrianO,  go to Toronto in the Jamaican drug gang turf sometime if you think Canadians don’t shoot each other.  Also remember the Montreal COllege shootings a few years back?  Fewer people and fewer gangs/minorities make Canada have fewer murders.  Compare CT outside of Hartford/NH/Bridgeport and we could be in Saskatchewan (or Utah!)

posted by: dano860 | March 19, 2013  9:32am

BrianO, they don’t have a Chicago, Hartford, Kansas City population to contend with. As a Socialist Democracy they don’t pander to the indigent low life’s the way we do.
The question remains, “would these recommendations have prevented the tragedy in Newtown?”
We now know that the perpetrator, of this crime, had been planning for years. Does it seem possible that he could do this without anyone detecting something? As smart as he was, he was also known to be ‘unstable’. His mother was his protector, provider and trainer. She apparently did those jobs very well but she apparently choose to ignore and signs of any trouble he may have posed to society. Her attempting to address these issues may have been the trigger also, she should have known that. I have acquaintances whose bi-polar children scare them. I’m not saying he was bi-polar but he was a big part of the reason for the divorce and even his father and brother had been estranged from interacting with him.
The problem isn’t the firearms, the criminals and those driven to destroy will always find methods to disrupt society.
A mentally ill student in Florida, just yesterday, killed himself but left behind enough bomb material and one (pistol) firearm. When police officials entered the victim’s dormitory, they discovered James Oliver Seevakumaran with a self-inflicted gunshot wound with a handgun nearby and a bag of homemade bombs and explosives.
The methods will change, the destructive results will be the same.
Answer the question…. don’t just confiscated firearms from law abiding citizens.

posted by: redman | March 19, 2013  9:40am

I will not register my guns.

posted by: kenneth_krayeske | March 19, 2013  10:16am


posted by: Barry bin Inhalin | March 19, 2013  10:57am

Does the term civil disobediance mean anything, Dannel P?

posted by: sofaman | March 19, 2013  10:59am

Canadian murder rate 1.6
U.S.A. murder rate 4.2

Brian O, you can put a million stats in front of these gun zealots, and they will remain in denial. The numbers prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our loose gun laws make the U.S.A. the most dangerous society in the western world.

posted by: BrianO | March 19, 2013  11:34am

Gun deaths in Canada per 100,000 is .5.  In US it is 10.22, 20X higher.

Gun Registry was crazy expensive, true.  Highest Year was $627 million.  Most recent year was $60 million.

Sorry I commented.  Bye

posted by: jim1 | March 19, 2013  11:34am

Now let me get this right. clip, cant hold 10 or more shells.  Now does that mean the clip can hold only 9?

posted by: CTResidentForLife | March 19, 2013  12:20pm

It looks like the radicals are running the show in Connecticut.

posted by: Joebigjoe | March 19, 2013  1:34pm

No it means that you cant have the gun because it has the capability of handling an external magazine over 10. Now go throw away that gun or better yet sell that death stick out of state so some other families are in danger….

posted by: sanecitizen | March 19, 2013  2:47pm


2011 firearm homicide rate was 2.75 per person (source http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-31/u-dot-s-dot-gun-homicide-rates-a-comparative-look)

2011 total homicide rates was 4.8 per 100k (source http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-19/lifestyle/35929227_1_homicide-rate-randolph-roth-gun-control) that rate includes fist, bats, clubs etc.

We’re at the lowest level of homicides rates since 1963 and we have seen 21 years of declining rates. This decline comes at a time firearm ownership has exploded and we have seen a massive proliferation of so called ‘assault weapons’ and high capacity magazines.

Don’t let these facts get in the way of your anti-gun rhetoric though.

posted by: ASTANVET | March 19, 2013  3:09pm

You can bring statistics and real life stories to bear in this state and none of it will matter - There is no choice, there is only compliance, there is no freedom only mob rule, they turn citizen to criminal with a swipe of a pen and if you speak up you’re a nut job, a crazy, a “survivalist”, paranoid or whatever else they want to call you.  I have committed no crime, I have not infringed on anyone else, I am a law abiding citizen, why then do I feel constantly under assault from the very government I serve and have risked it all for?

posted by: anuddaCTresident | March 19, 2013  6:32pm

@ BrianO and Sofaman, you, too, need to take the blinders off and look at stats.  truly, the argument that guns and access to guns is the real problem (particularly “assualt rifles”) would suggest that Switzerland would be a hell on earth since guns (even true assault weapons weapons) are ubiquitous.  On the contrary, its a very nice place, I’ve been there.

The difference is one of context.  The key continues to be awareness, training, and safety education.  Not gun grabbing.

posted by: sofaman | March 20, 2013  10:39am

@sanecitizen. Thank you for helping to make my point. Your first ‘correction’ is not sourced BTW. Your second is a higher number than what I quoted, but it’s from the FBI by the way, and since they know that 69% - 75% of all murders happen with a firearm, the numbers speak for themselves.

Yes, numbers are down, we should all be happy. Except please tell me what is acceptable for the USA to have between 4 and 20 times the murder rate of other developed countries. You seem to be satisfied by that. Many are not.

Please, please, please tell me that means you think the restrictions on guns in Switzerland should be applied to the USA.

posted by: Joebigjoe | March 20, 2013  12:37pm

“Except please tell me what is acceptable for the USA to have between 4 and 20 times the murder rate of other developed countries.”

First of all the other developed countries do not have our inner cities so its apples and oranges.

Second is that these so-called developed countries get alot of money from us in different ways to keep their economies going which helps keep crime down.

Finally, this discussion is about the second amendment and those of you that see a panacea in these other countries would be screaming just as loudly as we are about them restricting other bill of Rights amendments that you are more fond of. Restricted speech is very common in these other countries. 

posted by: anuddaCTresident | March 20, 2013  3:16pm

@sofaman….lol, actually, I don’t.  I chuckle cuz I figured someone would call me out on that.

Switzerland’s gun laws are actually quite loose.  The key difference between the US and Switzerland is the cultural context in which we view guns. 

However, Swiss laws are not particulary sweeping (still a bit more harsh than I believe in), they still allow for ownership of multiple weapons including semiatuos with high magazine capacity magazines. I don’t believe in banning concealed carry, like the Swiss do. 

It wasnt that long ago that you could own a howitzer or anti aircraft gun as a private citizen in Switzerland….can’t remember any howitzer murders.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages