Gun Legislation Moves Forward
by Hugh McQuaid | Mar 19, 2013 4:00pm
(13) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Public Safety, Newtown
Members of the Public Safety and Security Committee became the first lawmakers to cast votes on gun control legislation this session when they approved three noncontroversial measures Tuesday.
With no opposition, the committee passed proposals requiring criminal background checks for the private purchase of guns and new permitting requirements to host gun shows. A third measure would reduce the acceptable blood-alcohol limit for hunters to mirror the state’s driving-while-intoxicated statutes.
The committee’s action comes as legislative leaders work for a third week to negotiate behind closed doors on bipartisan legislation, which is likely to get fast-tracked past the traditional committee process.
Despite that separate process, Rep. Stephen Dargan, co-chairman of the committee, said it was significant that the panel with cognizance over firearm regulations move legislation this year.
“I think it’s important that this committee moves forward today with the first bills that are actually being voted upon. Now some people might say we don’t go far enough, that we didn’t do anything, but I think we did do something here today by going forward in a bipartisan manner,” he said.
As they’re written now, the three committee bills do not include any of the more controversial proposals, which have been under consideration in the months since Dec. 14 when a gunman murdered 20 first graders and six adults at a elementary school in Newtown.
Last week, the committee hosted a public hearing on a wide range of gun control proposals, drawing around 16 hours of testimony, mostly from 2nd Amendment advocates opposing the legislation. But the measures passed Tuesday were considered bipartisan consensus items.
Rep. Steve Mikutel, D-Griswold, said he considers himself a strong advocate of sportsmen, but he said expanded background checks were “more or less the minimum thing” lawmakers should pass after the Newtown shooting.
“I think that many legislators have thought it was necessary to respond to the Newtown tragedy,” he said. “I don’t think one can really argue against criminal background checks for the purchase of guns.”
Betty Gallo, a lobbyist for Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said she was hoping legislative leaders agree on more comprehensive gun control proposals, but was happy the committee took steps on the issue.
“It’s good to see universal support for some kind of movement around gun violence prevention. We don’t believe they go anywhere near far enough but it shows some willingness to negotiate,” she said.
Tags: gun control, public safety, dargan, Newtown, legislation, Hugh McQuaid, dh
(13) Comments
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 19, 2013 4:54pm
One of the best short pieces on gun control and culture. This helps explain one of the reasons gun owners get so mad at antigun people. Paragraph three says it all, but the whole short piece is right on.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/19/gun-debate-is-culture-debate/
posted by: Joe Eversole | March 19, 2013 5:28pm
If as Rep. Steve Mikutel states, this is in reaction to Newtown, then they are completely misguided. Or he is just a liar. I have my pick for which is which, but I will let you dear reader form your own opinion…..
1. Adam Lanza would have not needed to pass a criminal background check (he stole the firearms from his mother, who would have and did pass background checks).
2. Adam Lanza did not attend a gun show.
3. Adam Lanza wasn’t intoxicated.
Explain to me again Rep Mikutel how any of these proposals would have stopped the tragedy at Newtown? Or is it really just the first incremental steps towards a complete gun ban? Do me a favor you moron, pick the last three shootings in New Haven, Hartford, or Bridgeport, and see if any of the above would have stopped them from occurring. No? Then you aren’t making us any safer.
posted by: anuddaCTresident | March 19, 2013 6:08pm
Meaningless dreck that has zero impact on an event like Sandy Hook and little effect on gun crime at all.
Seriously, lowering the BAC level for hunters? Thank you for saving us from the rash of drunken hunter crime that has been the bane of CT’s existence lo these many years.
Permitting rules for gunshows??? That oughta stop the criminals from HOSTING gun shows.
Background checks for private sales…ok, that one makes sense and I do support it as it might keep guns off the street and outta the hands of garden variety criminals.
But none of these things have a single thing to do with the events surrounding the Newtown tragedy. he didnt go to a gun show, he didnt buy a weapon, and he wasn’t a drunken hunter.
posted by: ACR | March 19, 2013 6:38pm
So there you have it folks, they’ve revealed their strategy.
Start with the “reasonable” sounding minimal encroachments…and then once the public is hopefully lulled into a false sense of security…......
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | March 19, 2013 8:04pm
these efforts are fine, but the mental health issue is the biggest - where’s that?
HST
posted by: dano860 | March 20, 2013 7:40am
Answer the question,“Would these laws prevent another Newtown or equivalent tragedy?”
Where is the mere mention of mental illness? How about regulations with regard to proper storage of firearms?
Lanza’s mother apparently chose to ignore both.
posted by: sightover | March 20, 2013 8:03am
These measures are “noncontroversial” under the gold dome because CT lawmakers are so maddeningly devoted to “doing something” at any cost that they need to invent common ground somewhere when ALL their proposed new gun laws are irrational and will be ineffectual in stopping murder.
Requiring background checks for private sales (aka the gunshow loophole) makes it much more onerous for lawful citizens (already precluded from transferring handguns) to give a .22 rifle to a relative or spouse as a gift, or buy a shotgun from their gun club hunting buddy, but it WILL NOT stop a straw buyer from supplying his gang pals with pistols.
The law oughtn’t be a tool to stigmatize a culture of gun ownership and/or to increase sentences for criminals at the expense of removing choice and freedom from those who don’t break laws to begin with.
CT is proudly “progressive:” too bad the perception and treatment of one segment of society by northeastern progressives is no more evolved than that which the Southern Democrats gave another group of citizens during the Jim Crow era.
... and I must say, with 20 recently murdered children, I’m glad CT is taking this critical opportunity to address drunk hunting. Bravo.
What a joke.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 20, 2013 10:14am
I’m stealing this from someone else but I think its simple and brilliant with regards to requiring gun insurance. Here it is:
How about some mandatory insurance for mental health in case of a “Psychotic Break”? Or maybe “Potential Criminal Activity” Insurance be mandated on us - just in case we break the law?
posted by: Quiet eye | March 20, 2013 5:07pm
There is a generic profile of those who are prone to commit violence in a school.
It is a Male, 14-20 of age, comes from a troubled home, has mental health problems, maybe on Psychotropic drugs, bullied by others, is a poor Academic Achiever, lives on the social fringe, and is rejected by peers, has been suspended from school around Graduation time, shows frequent anger and range.
So why are our legislators not focusing on this profile for gun control legislation?? Instead they focus on law biding gun owners. Where is the justice here??
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 20, 2013 6:56pm
We provide young people psychotropic drugs because we want to help them. However, many times their issues are genetic meaning that there may be parental mental illness. Since we cant rely on the parents in all cases, why couldnt we allow the principal or next level down administrator in a large school know that they are medicated so they keep a special eye on them? Again isnt the goal to help them?
