Gun Control Advocates Push Lawmakers To Act
by Hugh McQuaid | Mar 13, 2013 1:58pm
(27) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Public Safety, Newtown
As gun control advocates got a crash course in lobbying Wednesday morning, some expressed frustration with the state’s Democratic majority for not tossing aside bipartisan politics and simply passing stricter firearm regulations.
Legislative leaders were expected to meet for a fifth round of negotiations Wednesday in hopes of reaching a bipartisan agreement on gun violence prevention legislation in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders.
But three months after the shooting, some gun control advocates are losing patience. They gathered at the Legislative Office Building to lobby lawmakers, just two days after gun owners lobbied by the busload in opposition to stricter gun laws.
Legislative leaders have called their continuing talks productive. But as gun control advocates listened to tips on how to engage lawmakers, some seemed confused and annoyed with the legislative process and how long it has taken. Officials from Connecticut Against Gun Violence who organized the lobby day answered some questions after a brief presentation.
West Hartford resident Steve Holmes asked why Democrats — who control both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s office — hadn’t simply passed their agenda over the opposition of the minority party.
“Why are bipartisan politics more important than 26 lives?” he asked, getting a round of applause from the group. “My 9-year-old daughter wants to know as well.”
Although most advocates who spoke at the meeting urged supporters to refer to gun control in terms of public health rather than politics, many seemed to view the issue through an increasingly partisan lens.
CAGV Executive Director Ron Pinciaro summarized for the group the gun control debate as it has played out so far this session. He mentioned that the legislature’s bipartisan task force on gun regulations produced a separate set of recommendations for each political party.
When Pinciaro pointed out that Republicans did not recommend limiting high capacity ammunition magazines or prohibiting more firearms under the state’s assault weapons ban — both part of CAGV’s agenda — a few people in the group muttered “Surprise, surprise.”
The partisan framing of the issue is consistent with a poll released Tuesday by Quinnipiac University, which found voters approve of expanding the assault weapons ban 71-26 percent. They also said they trust Democrats on gun policy over Republicans by a 49-27 percent margin.
Gun control advocates were given copies of the poll to show lawmakers as they lobbied Wednesday.
Following a round of negotiations Monday night, Senate President Donald Williams said that Democratic leaders in the Senate and House were on the same page regarding what they wanted to see in the emergency certified gun legislation. He said differences remain between the two parties.
However, House Republican leader Lawrence Cafero pushed back on the poll Tuesday and the assertion that gun control is a partisan issue. He said the poll likely did not define “gun control,” which can include a number of different proposals.
“What I have found, is even in a small room of leaders, we vary by nuance in each individual one of those categories. And it’s a very hard issue to poll other than to say the following: ‘Are you for gun control or not,’” he said.
Cafero said lawmakers have heard what the poll indicated and are cognizant of it. Still, he said he considers gun control to be more of a geographical issue than one of partisan politics. Members of both parties in rural areas may have a different view of guns than those representing urban communities, he said.
“I hope there will be Democratic and Republican votes for whatever package emerges,” Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said after a bond commission meeting. “I know there will be Democratic and Republican votes against whatever package emerges, but I firmly believe in keeping with the citizenry’s desire that a package will be passed.”
Malloy put his own proposals forward last month regarding stricter gun control measures. The Sandy Hook Advisory Commission he created is expected to wrap up its work this week. In the meantime, all Malloy can do is wait on legislative leaders to negotiate a deal.
About a dozen of Cafero’s constituents met with him behind closed doors after brushing up on their lobbying techniques.
This isn’t the first year Connecticut Against Gun Violence has lobbied the legislature in favor of tighter gun regulations. But the group’s president, Marty Isaac, told supporters they had two things in the wake of the Newtown shooting, which they lacked in previous years — numbers and money.
In future elections, Isaac suggested the group may try to unseat lawmakers who don’t vote their way on gun control. He said in the past, policy makers have only had to deal with the outrage of advocates.
“They will still have to deal with our moral outrage, but now we have a war chest and we demand action. I think you should be expressing that point of view,” he said.
However, 2nd Amendment advocates view the gun control proposals under discussion as punishing law-abiding gun owners for the acts of a criminal. And they have presented similarly simple argument to lawmakers.
“I want them to understand it’s against our state constitution to infringe on our gun rights in any way, shape, or form,” East Windsor resident Carl Palmberg said Monday.
Both groups are expected to return to the state Capitol Thursday, when the Public Safety Committee holds a public hearing on a series of gun control proposals.
Tags: gun control, legislature, Newtown shooting, public safety, legislative office building, Hugh McQuaid, dh
(27) Comments
posted by: sanecitizen | March 13, 2013 3:20pm
It looks like about 40 people showed up for this lobby day versus thousands for the NRA day?
Which group do the politicians think is really going to show up at the polls?
posted by: Nutmeg87 | March 13, 2013 3:42pm
Yes 26 lives are important.
Yes it was horrific.
Yes it captures the hearts of a nation.
But MILLIONS of lives were lost in countless battles against tyranny, evil etc… to give US ALL THE FREEDOMS THAT THE US CONSTITUTION AFFORDS US ALL…
The 2nd Amendment was the result of THOUSANDS of LIVES LOST (young & old) from the tyranny of GOVT. Taxation & limiting rights, incl. right to own guns was why the colonists fought the British…
26 lives lost was senseless and horrible… But why is reversing the freedoms gained going to do… CERTAINLY the Federal AWB did nothing… Obama’s Justice Dept said it… 99% of gun-related crimes are committed by shotguns or pistols… 50% are suicides… More Law enforcement officers committed suicide in CT with service pistols than AR-15 murders… Most gun crimes now invole youth relating to another act of crime… I’m sure they didnt legally own it…
As for limiting magazine count… A beautifully promising young girl was murdered by a golf club in Greenwich in the 1970s (Martha Moxley). I own 3 sets of golf clubs and like to play with 14 clubs at a time… Are you going to advocate that I only carry 10 clubs because they are weapons capable of killing 4 extra people?
posted by: Durham Trash | March 13, 2013 3:57pm
Unfortuantely, most “control”
advocates are more interested in gun
“control” than in controlling gun
violence, and cannot articulate how
more controls will equal less violence.
When pollsters ask stupid questions
they get back stupid answers.
Most of those polled do not know
what the existing laws are, and
how “assault” weapons are legally
defined (hint:they are the ones
painted black).
If you don’t know those two pieces of
information, what good is your
opinion? Remember, Legislators,
that it isn’t about what the poll of
tv-watching
non-voters called by phone show,
but rather who will fund your
campaigns and who will get voters
to the polls.
posted by: Chien DeBerger | March 13, 2013 4:38pm
“As gun control advocates got a crash course in lobbying Wednesday morning, some expressed frustration with the state’s Democratic majority for not tossing aside bipartisan politics and simply passing stricter firearm regulations.”
Yep, go ahead and unilaterally pass Governor Dannel’s measures and you can bet there will be a whole bunch of democrats finishing their present term to an election loss. The democrats know that this could sink them along with the financial shenanigans being played in Hartford.
There is a reason why the democrats want a bi-partisan bill, so they don’t get thrown under the bus. If the republicans were smart they will not cast one vote for any restrictions. Let the democrats own this!
posted by: thomas hooker | March 13, 2013 5:11pm
House minority leader Larry Cafero says that, “he considers gun control to be more of a geographical issue than one of partisan politics.” Hogwash. According to Open Secrets, an organization that tracks campaign spending, the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies spent 96% of their campaign contributions on Republicans in 2012. The NRA itself spent some $12 million attempting to defeat Democratic candidate Barack Obama for president. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA spent 89% of its campaign contributions to support Republican candidates in 2012. It is clear as daylight that the NRA and Republican Party are joined at the hip in attempting to stop gun control legislation. And Republican leader Larry Cafero knows it.
posted by: thomas hooker | March 13, 2013 5:45pm
If Republican legislators vote against gun control legislation, there will be far fewer Republicans in the General Assembly next time around. Gun control is overwhelmingly popular, and the vast majority of people in this state are demanding it. Democrats in this state will not sit by and let the General Assembly do nothing after the Newtown massacre. And Republican politicians know it.
posted by: rankandfile | March 13, 2013 5:49pm
@thomas hooker, I’m sure you know that the anti 2nd amendment lobby and the Democrats are joined at the hip in attempting to push anti-gun legislation.
posted by: Nutmeg87 | March 13, 2013 7:26pm
So what… The GOP is traditionally the entire Country except parts of the coasts… The heartland of this country obviously believes in the 2nd Amendment…
4.5million Americans belong to the NRA. $12.5 million spent by 4.5 million members is surely the core of Americans…
So if the NRA is representing the GOP, then thats $12million from 4.5 million citizens, I think thats GREAT.. The people have spoken…
Whereas, a MULTI-BILLIONNAIRE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (1 man / no spouse) spent $249 million to receive 2.54 million votes (meaning, over his political career, he’s spent about $121 per vote) to BUY his Mayoral Election in NYC… This guy actually changed the election law to offer himself a third term !!! This demagogue tried to BAN sugary drinks in NYC !!! OVERTURNED BY COURTS Yesterday…
THIS IS THE GUY THAT JUST SEEDED HIS ANTI-GUN SUPER PAC BY $10million TO PUSH GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IN WASHINGTON, MARYLAND, COLORADO, AND TIPPED THE SCALE IN A CHICAGO SPECIAL ELECTION WITH A $2MM PAC contribution…
SO… who is representing America? A $25Billion guy that just bought a 3rd term in NYC that tried to BAN SUGARY DRINKS!!!! OR 4.5 million Americans donating $12million to a maintain the INTERITY of our Constitutional Liberties ...
Bloomberg spent over $100million of his own money to CREATE a 3rd term just so he can BAN Sugary Drinks & Guns, while Mr Hooker explains the NRA spent $12mm trying to defeat Obama… A guy that’s bankrupting America with his >$5 trillion in Debt Spending & trying to overturn the 2nd Amendment… He is so intent on removing guns, that his Attorney General (Holder) LOST over 2,000 weapons in a STING-GONE-BAD to illegal aliens & drug trafficers (ATF’s Fast & Furious Operation)... Only 700+ guns were ever recovered… I guess Obama wants to make it up by taking US citizens guns, so we cant protect ourselves from criminals using HIS LOST weapons… So the ATF can spend their time now confiscating plastic magazines from US Citizens, instead of recovering the weapons THEY GAVE TO CRIMINALS & ILLEGALS… Nice….
So Cafero is CORRECT, its certainly regional ... GOP support spans virtually all states except the coasts & urban centers…
posted by: Hebee | March 13, 2013 8:50pm
Thomas Hooker, The NRA’s $12 million is chump change. According to AP, unions spent “more than $400 million to help re-elect President Barack Obama and lift Democrats this election year.”
The New York Times; “Big Labor spent nearly $450 million in the 2008 elections electing Obama and the Democrats.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, three of the top five spending political groups in the 2010 midterms were labor unions. Tommy, do you know where your Union Dues go?
posted by: sanecitizen | March 13, 2013 9:07pm
Saying we should do something just becsuse it’s popular, no offense, is an ignorant argument and displays a sad understanding of how our rights and liberties operate to protect individual rights from an oppressive majority.
Slavery, native American oppression, racial and gender inequality, opposition to gay rights..etc, all great examples of controversy’s that enjoyed popular support at some point in history. Simply claiming popular support is a hideously weak argument.
Even the witch trials enjoyed majority support. Those worked out well.
Great argument you have there.
posted by: sparkplug | March 13, 2013 9:21pm
If Democrats weren’t worried about a pro-second amendment backlash on election day they’d have rammed through their ridiculous legislation a week after the Newtown tragedy. Think about it. They have an overwhelming majority in the House and an overwhelming majority in the Senate. They don’t need bipartisanship to get what they want. They can push through any bill any time they want. So why push for a bipartisan package? Because they KNEW there’d be a HUGE pro-second amendment backlash. But with “bi-partisan” legislation, they can blame those evil Republicans for watering down their wet dream Marxist legislation. Political self-preservation wins over political ideology every time when you’re a politician.
posted by: Noteworthy | March 13, 2013 10:44pm
This gun control legislation is all about politics and nothing about Sandy Hook, the 26 lives lost or doing what might prevent it from happening again. This is about liberal long held views of severe gun control.
Note to Steve Holmes - the reason why Dems don’t and shouldn’t just steamroll this legislation unlike so much other stuff that they do - is because so much of this legislation is just theater and rights reduction. When the public gets a whiff of what’s really being considered, they won’t want to be the only party responsible for it and for the years of litigation that should follow.
posted by: Chien DeBerger | March 14, 2013 7:25am
I would recommend looking at the following report from the Chief’s States Attorney on arrests versus convictions for 50 criminals statutes concerning guns. It is eye opening and once again shows we don’t have a problem with laws being enacted, just using them. (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0174.htm)
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 14, 2013 7:56am
I am really starting to wonder something. For the one or two of you anti gun people on the board please stay with me on this. Maybe you will even see that there is something wrong.
We all agree that the big issue is mental illness. Only sick people do this stuff. If you dont agree then sorry you are sick and need intervention.
Granted you then add that these are sick people but if they had a smaller magazine size or less access to scary looking guns then less people would die. I think that’s kind of your logic.
Since we all agree that first and foremost it’s mental illness first, but part company at the gun issue, why is there nothing yet proposed on mental illness?
Again stay with me on this from a political standpoint and a social standpoint.
If there was sweeping mental illness legislation which we all seem to want, wouldnt it make more sense that if we start off agreeing on that solution that gun control for the anti gun side might be alot easier since then we would start from the same side.
I predict the reason this is now happening other than White House pressure and Malloys future job, is that they have squat on mental illness. Everyone with a brain will look at what finally gets announced and know that the have absolute squat and lack the courage to lock away more sick people. Therefore, they want to blame guns, pass something that is anti gun and anti 2nd amendment, because the low information person will think they did something. They can then rub their hands together and say that with the budget issues we just cant deal with the crazy people this year because we spent so much time on guns.
Just another thought because I think that it would be easier for them to pass gun control if they had real tough new mental health approaches done first. Blame the tool but don’t open up a facility with a whole bunch more beds to actually take these people off the streets.
posted by: dano860 | March 14, 2013 8:14am
It isn’t about control, it’s about confiscation.
It isn’t about money, it’s about the message.
It’s about the Constitution and application of the existing law.
It’s about common sense and the restrictions that need to apply to the mentally incapable.
Take it slow, do it correctly.
Respect ALL people’s rights, abilities and interests.
One question must be answered, will this legislation prevent another mindless, uncaring, in humane act by a mentally unstable person?
posted by: dano860 | March 14, 2013 9:39am
JBJ, the firearms don’t ,“look scary”, they are ERGONOMIC. The tool functions in harmony with the body.
Also they aren’t going to , lock anybody away, mental issues or otherwise! They don’t even lock up the perpetrators of existing laws!
posted by: ad_ebay | March 14, 2013 9:41am
Go to the dust covered copy of the Constitution of the United States on the bookshelf and look up Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This section expressly forbids “ex post facto laws”. However, the registration provisions of the “assault weapons” expansion clearly make it a FELONY to possess firearms that were previously called “legally owned” before the law.
I find the language of S.B. 1076 egregious at best. How can elected officials believe themselves so above the people who elected them as representatives that they could resort to such tyranny….yes, tyranny! Which Constitutional Right will be the next to go? Have they already decided?
Tell your children to remember when one could speak against the government and express a free opinion. That may be the next to go.
posted by: ad_ebay | March 14, 2013 9:42am
According to politico logic, based on the latest incidents involving children in this state, they should work up bills to outlaw grandmother visits and mothers planning birthday parties!
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 14, 2013 1:51pm
Great comment by the press of stag arms just now
This is the same technology that started in 1905 and the only differences are cosmetic
Damn facts
posted by: sofaman | March 15, 2013 10:48am
It is interesting that yet another public issue is driven by the Right “gun owners”; is banked by manufacturers; and has FEAR as its driving argument. “They are going to take away ALL our guns, those totalitarian monsters!!!!
When actually, looked at from a public safety point of view, the data and history prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the loose proliferation of guns makes society less safe.
It’s sad to see the “Real America” point of view come to the surface. Doesn’t the defeat of McCain (Palin) and Romney show America is tired of this divisionism?
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 15, 2013 1:57pm
Sofaman, wake up. Very smart, very successful, very level headed people are scared. The division is not coming from the right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kbBvtaY6Dw4
if that doesnt prove it then how about this from the LA Times referring to the new terrorists as white men who are more dangerous than international terrorists. I bet you dont see these pieces of information in your leftist media.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/9893/la-times-angry-white-men-dangerous-international-terrorists/
posted by: sofaman | March 17, 2013 2:21pm
JBJ, you are one ludicrous personality.
YOU have openly said here on CTNJ (not suggested) that you would take up arms and violently rebel against government policies that you disagree with.
Now when exactly the same thing is suggested in print by someone else it bothers you?
You can articulate any position you choose, but don’t expect to get away with blatant hypocrisy.
I know lots of level-headed successful people and they are scared of people with firearms who make open threats.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 17, 2013 9:41pm
Sofaman, if the govt comes to confiscate guns I will fight because the next step after that is slavery for me and my children.
Is that clear? I hope so. If not go live in Russia.
Learn your history!
The LA times is trying to demonize people that care about the Constitution. The Southern Poverty law Center, hardly a bastion of pro-America thought just labelled Oathkeepers a terrorist group. Do you know who they are? Police, miltary etc that have served this country and served their communities that have taken an oath to keep the oath they took when they got the job. Now according to SPLC they are terrorists.
I’m not the crazy one Sofaman.
posted by: sofaman | March 18, 2013 9:09pm
Exactly. So for the record you are publicly advocating shooting law enforcement officials who are upholding the law.
Got it.
Spin it any way you want.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 19, 2013 12:36am
Sofaman, I will shoot anyone that tries to illegally take away my guns. The Bill of Rights gives me this ability. If I owned an AR15 and they wanted to take that because SCOTUS said I couldnt have it, then I would not shoot. If they were trying to take away regular rifles and handguns even if SCOTUS said they could, I would shoot. If you cant see that the government taking away all guns will be the last step towards being slaves then I just cant teach you history in this small space.
posted by: Hebee | March 19, 2013 8:25am
First: Believing that you need your weapon to defend yourself from the US Government is a problem. Actually believing that you are able to sit in your living room with your AK-47 and hold off a State Police SWAT team is proof of mental incompetency and you shouldn’t be allowed a permit in the first place. That said, these Legislators have obviously underestimated the number of Democratic Gun Owners in this State and payback is going to be achieved at the 2014 election. This proposed Legislation has nothing to do with public saftey and discriminates against tax paying Connecticut Citizens. Why are they going after the law abiding taxpayers who actually pay the freight for the silly policies enacted by this Administration. Good luck in your next job Dan as that position in the Justice Dept. is obviously beyond your capacity.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 19, 2013 10:20am
Hebee, that is not the primary reason for me to own weapons. if it was I would actually own things different than what I do.
We are 17.5 trillion dollars in debt with 80-100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Shame on me for thinking there is no way for us to pay that off and that could lead to economic collapse and my gut tells that if that occurs that we wont be sitting around singing Kumbiya.
The US govt not Joebigjoe has Continuity of Government Operations plans. In their own plans, depending on the situation, they say that police will not report to work so they can protect their families, armed gangs will form in the cities mostly and they will go into the suburbs creating hell for those people.
So if the US govt thinks this could happen, why would they want my weapon? So I cant fight back? So I can be put into a FEMA camp for my protection?
Dont say this is crazy talk unless you make the effort to do the research. About a month or so ago Leon Panetta said at georgetown University that on a daily basis, did you read that….DAILY BASIS…our country fights off hacker attacks that could cripple our country.
Well, shame on me for listening to him, praying it never occurs, but not being a mindless dolt that if it does, that everything will be all peachy keen.
Oh, by the way…I have two friends who are Ct State Troopers and they are in full agreement and can recite chapter and verse on things even beyond what I said that have them prepared.