Thousands Turn Out For First Public Hearing On Guns
by Hugh McQuaid | Jan 28, 2013 7:12pm
(22) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Civil Liberties, Town News, Newtown, Law Enforcement, Public Safety, State Capitol
More than 2,000 people traveled Monday to the state Capitol for an all-day public hearing on gun regulations that was scheduled as a response to the Newtown murders. Most asked lawmakers not to pass stricter gun control laws.
Early in the day, a line stretched around the Legislative Office Building as members of the public waited in the snow to pass through metal detectors set up by the Capitol police. Officers manning the metal detectors reported no unusual incidents and said no one attempted to bring firearms into the building.
In the morning, lawmakers heard from some of the families of the Sandy Hook victims, some of whom argued for additional gun restriction. They also took testimony from several representatives of gun manufacturing companies who warned against passing gun control legislation that they didn’t believe would make the state any safer.
In the afternoon, lawmakers began to hear from the several thousand residents who risked the wintry roads to testify before the committee. While positions varied, members of the public primarily argued against the implementation of more restrictions on gun owners.
Christopher Yen, of Norwalk, told lawmakers it was “common sense” that assault weapon bans don’t work, as they have been tried before. A federal law banned assault weapons from 1994 to 2004.
“These laws simply didn’t prevent mass violence. Columbine. Connecticut Lottery. The bans did nothing to prevent them, committed with weapons fully compliant with those laws. For me the simple perception is these laws don’t work,” he said.
Like most of the pro-gun speakers to testify, Yen got a round of applause from the audience as he finished speaking.
The audience continued applauding despite several requests by lawmakers, who are accustomed to orderly hearings, to refrain from reacting to testimony. Early in the hearing Senate President Donald Williams urged the people in the hearing room to stop clapping, talking, or laughing during testimony.
“We would like to proceed in an atmosphere in this room where folks are respectful,” Williams said. “I would appreciate it actually if going forward . . . if folks refrain from reacting, from commenting, and even from applauding.”
One woman in the room responded to his request by shouting “We’re humans!”
As lawmakers made their way through a several-page list of the thousands who had signed up to testify, people waiting to speak stood in the halls of the Legislative Office Building, or in a number of overflow hearing rooms, where the proceedings were playing on closed-caption television.
Paul Elsenboss of Woodbury was waiting out in the hall. He said he has been a National Rifle Association member since he was 14 years old.
Elsenboss said that he began teaching his kids gun safety when they were around the age of three by showing them Eddie Eagle, a children’s movie created by the NRA. He was skeptical of what he had heard so far from lawmakers.
“A lot of stuff they’re proposing won’t make a difference. It’s about respect and gun awareness more than anything,” he said. “The kids I meet through shooting have respect and responsibility, they are some of the nicest people you will ever meet.”
For some, like Matt Keller of Madison, an ideal solution would include a ban on assault weapons. A proposal that prompted a rebuttal from gun advocate Mauriello Phillips who was standing nearby.
“I go by the constitution,” he said.
Keller said gun safety legislation and the 2nd Amendment are not mutually exclusive.
“Both actually are compatible, and for a sane and safe society you can have reasonable restrictions without infringing on the rights of gun owners,” Keller said “You can have reasonable restrictions and gun ownership, which is perfectly compatible with safety. So, I’m not out to ban anybody’s rights on weapons but I would like to see some sane legislation.”
Back in the hearing room lawmakers heard from a few members of the public who agreed. Kimberly Oryell, of South Windsor, brought a photo of her uncle, Jerry, who was murdered in North Carolina.
She asked the committee to act not just to prevent more mass shootings, but the violent crime that occurs every day. She said mass murders are typically committed by people who pass a background check because they have no criminal history.
“Street crime, however, is most usually committed by those who have previous criminal offenses and did not obtain a weapon through legal means, as is the case with the ex-convict who shot my uncle in a dark parking lot,” she said.
Oryell called for regulations prohibiting a gun in the home of a person with a mental illness. She also called for a law requiring a permit to possess a rifle.
“To say handguns should be subject to scrutiny but rifles should not is absurd. If a weapon can shoot a bullet then it will be deadly in the wrong hands,” she said.
But a vast majority of those who testified were of the opinion of John Barry, who told lawmakers that “only in Connecticut would a massacre of innocents result in a tax proposal.” Barry was referring to legislation by Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, which would place a tax on ammunition.
In his testimony, Barry laid out justification for owning several different types of artillery. Some of the gun control advocates who testified questioned why civilians would ever need to own assault rifles.
“Why do we need so called assault rifles in a civilized society? I watched people on TV after Hurricane Katrina talk about pickup trucks full of thugs stopping at the end of their driveways,” Barry said.
There are 91 pieces of legislation this year seeking to tighten gun laws, according to Robert Crook, director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen.
Crook observed that there were more pro-gun advocates at the hearing Monday than the opposition.
But Betty Gallo, a lobbyist for Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said she was heartened by the 100 advocates who turned out to testify in favor of strengthening Connecticut’s gun laws. Gallo said the National Rifle Association has a long history of being able to turn people out for hearings.
Megan Merrigan and Christine Stuart contributed to this report.
Tags: public hearing, Hugh McQuaid, connecticut, guns, gun violence, Newtown, murder, 2nd amendment, dh
(22) Comments
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | January 28, 2013 10:22pm
the problem is that nothing offered up yet would have prevented many of the shootings of the past decade. effective gun control can only begin in congress.
we have budget and jobs issues. get to work on that. leave the guns to the feds.
HST
posted by: wmwallace | January 29, 2013 2:02am
That is not your decision Dr Thompson. The Second Amendment gives me the right to protect myself from those who would hurt my loved one’s. There are many examples of people defending themselves or their family members who without firearms would have been killed themselves. Is that what you and others who are against law abiding citizens owning guns?
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 29, 2013 9:05am
I watched a few hours of this on TV last night. About 11PM last night there was a very articulate guy from Greenwich who put down his prepared text and just spoke. He was great and in a debate with any of the antigun crowd that’s on the extreme, he would rip them to shreds.
There was one piece of information that was stated that I wont call a fact yet until I can verify it. The average number of people in a home invasion is three apparently. If anyone knows where I can verify that please post.
posted by: Mopar | January 29, 2013 9:10am
love this part:
For some, like Matt Keller of Madison, an ideal solution would include a ban on assault weapons.
<—snip—>
Keller said “You can have reasonable restrictions and gun ownership, which is perfectly compatible with safety. So, I’m not out to ban anybody’s rights on weapons but I would like to see some sane legislation.”
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 29, 2013 10:35am
Mopar, I’m not following you. Who defines ‘sane” legislation?
I won’t give you my last name, but if you had it, and searched the Hartford Courant Letters to the Editor, you would find a letter from me after the Aurora shooting saying as directly and profesionally I could, that “gun free zones were going to lead to a school massacre in CT.” Now granted I honestly wasnt thinking little kids, would the politicians that have heard this message many times before mine, be considered insane for not protecting our schools in CT.
President Obama said that he shoots skeet all the time. Really? The Propogandist in Chief would have had pictures of that shown over the last four years. I dont believe him nor do tens of millions of other Americans. Are we all insane or should we trust these people that lie without any regard to put together sane legislation?
posted by: tmzphoto | January 29, 2013 11:17am
Quite frankly, all of this posturing by the federal government and the state is irrelevant. Neither have any legal right to regulate firearms in the ways they arte suggesting. The Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, thus making the whole militia argument moot. The CT Constitution is even more clear. Article 1, Sec. 15 says, “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” The state of Connecticut has no right under its own Constitution to restrict firearm ownership. Further, Article 1, Sec. 11 says, “The property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation therefor.” Two of my AR’s cost more than $2500 each. Where is a state that is already borrowing money to pay its operating expenses going to find the money to justly compensate every AR owner, if they try to confiscate them? This is not legal, not practical, and will never hold up to legal challenge if passed.
posted by: BMS | January 29, 2013 11:41am
Connecticut is the Constitution State. Our constitution says. “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
posted by: Mopar | January 29, 2013 6:01pm
Joebigjoe: Reread my post again. My point was in the very same interview Keller says he’s not out to ban anyone’s guns, *and* says he wants to ban so-called “assault weapons”.
Contradiction much?
posted by: stellablu122 | January 29, 2013 7:08pm
Its clear legal gun owners believe that any ideas of rational and proactive legislation is a full blown attempt at taking your gun away. Keep drinking thatNRA kool aid. Is it unreasonable to have to show your gun permit, which you already have, to buy an ammunition? Or Georgia or North Carolina to have the same standard to legally buy a gun like Connecticut? This alone would prevent thousands of criminals from obtaining guns and ammunition legally and illegally. That is what this debate is about reducing violence crime in all areas of our society. Have your guns but do it legally please.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 29, 2013 8:38pm
Stella stop with the NRA kool aid stuff. That’s just repeating leftist talking points.
If I gave you a gun would you go shoot litle kids? Didnt think so, so wouldn’t that tell you that the issue is the person and not guns.
How about we do universal background checks from now on? I’ll agree with that if you agree to universal concealed carry for everyone who passes the background check.
Yeah I didnt think so.
You folks aren’t fooling anyone. Your messiah Obama came out with immigration reform today but doesn’t believe in border control as part of that. WTF? This is America and we have borders last I looked. This non border thing and attacks on the second amendment by this man are an attempt to destroy America and more and more highly educated people see it.
posted by: tmzphoto | January 29, 2013 8:47pm
The problem is not with some of the more reasonable ideas, like showing ID for ammo purchases, or background checks for long guns (which, by the way, every shop is already doing). It’s with the proposals like HR 5647 from Wallingford’s Mary Mushinsky, which seeks to “to: (1) Prohibit an individual from possessing a fully automatic or semiautomatic assault weapon unless such person is a peace officer or a member of the armed forces; (2) prohibit an individual from possessing a large capacity ammunition feeding device that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition; and (3) provide fair compensation to owners of banned weapons.” CT already has an assault weapon ban, so anything legally defined as an assault weapon is already banned. The AR-15’s being bought now are not “assault weapons” under CT law. Fully automatic weapons are controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1928, and ARE legal in CT, provided you go through the red tape. And prohibiting me from possessing the high capacity magazines I already own and already paid for, amounts to an unacceptable and illegal seizure of private property. If you want to call that “drinking the Kool-Aid”, then go right ahead. But like it or not, possession of firearms is an individual right, not a privelege, like driving a motor vehicle. If you don’t like the Constitutions of the state or nation, then go through the process to change them. But you can’t pick and choose which parts of the laws you prefer to follow, any more than I can. Legally, the state and federal governments are on shaky ground here. Many people bought weapons to protect their families in response to another CT tragedy, the Cheshire home invasion case, which everyone seems to have forgotten about. The next time a home invasion incident happens, and it turns out someone was unarmed or under armed because of government meddling, then it’s entirely possible you’ll see a massive suit against the state. Personally, I think it’s time Connecticut’s existing ban was challenged in court. It’s a clear violation of Article 1, Sec. 15.
posted by: Mopar | January 29, 2013 9:01pm
The problem is Stella, your ideas are not practical, rational, or proactive. No koolaid involved.
Example - show permit to buy ammo: What good would just showing a permit do? It might be forged, or revoked. We don’t ‘just’ show our permit to purchase a gun. We spend about 10 minutes filling out forms, and then the permit and form info is called into the state police, who then check to make sure your permit is still valid. This can take another 5 minutes, or another 45 minutes, or in about 10% of the cases, several days. Imagine going through all that every time you bought gas for your car to make sure your driver’s license wasn’t revoked? Ammo is also fairly easy to manufacture yourself at home. It’s currently perfectly legal and millions of people do it to save money or to make ammo that is more accurate then mass produced stuff. So now how do you regulate THAT? You can melt down old lead fishing sinkers and wheel weights and mold them into bullets. Look on ebay, there are hundreds of auctions for scrap lead to make bullets. How do you regulate that? Ammo is FAR easier to make then say crack or meth. Your idea would put a burden on the legal folks, and a huge burden on the stores. If your cashier has to spend 30 minutes to ring up each sale when it used to take 1, what will that do for your profits? How will you stop illegal ammo dealers once there is a profitable market for no questions asked ammo? How will your ‘reasonable’ idea keep ammo out of the hands of people who it’s ALREADY against the law to have, and keep them from putting it in guns they are already not allowed to have?
posted by: Mopar | January 29, 2013 9:09pm
And in a sense Georgia or any other state DOES have the same standard as CT. By federal law you, as a resident of CT, can not just drive to Georgia and buy a handgun. Well, you can drive there, and you can pay the man in GA, but then he has to ship that gun back to a government approved dealer in CT. Then you can drive back to CT, go to the dealer, and go through the exact same background checks you always have to. Internet sales are the same way. Sure, you can go online and buy a gun, but the gun doesn’t get shipped to you, it gets shipped to your local dealer again, who makes sure the gun is legal to own in CT and legal for you to have after running the background checks. It’s already a federal crime to do otherwise.
posted by: johnnyb | January 29, 2013 9:33pm
The gun nut crowd likes to use the catch phrase of responsible gun owners are being punished in most of their arguements. People who need 20 to 30 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo in their closet to feel secure are the last ones we should be listening too. The issue here is the moment when the responsible gun owner becomes the irresponsible gun owner and he kills his wife or girlfriend, or he goes after family members that have angered him, or he goes after his co-workers, or he meets the police who have been called to the scene via someone calling 9-1-1. Do we want these guys that were responsible but now aren’t to have the firepower of a Navy Seal team? People can have a handgun or shotgun to “protect their home” but society has the right to protect it’s citizens from the major death and destruction that individuals with large magazine weapons can do. Ban everything above seven rounds ammo wise and no assualt rifles of any type.
posted by: sanecitizen | January 29, 2013 11:57pm
@Stellablu
That’s a ridiculous argument. Gun owners are addressing the broad scope of the dozens of bills proposed, and yet, you pick the most innocuous components and use it as the foundation to claim it’s only those seemingly rational portions that have citizens upset.
I appreciate you trying to calm the confiscation rabble but if you reviewed the contents of the proposed legislation you would see there are no grandfather clauses.
I’d also like to point out a criminal can’t obtain a gun legally.
Also if you really would like to reduce crime, well it’s happening. Crime has been on a steady decline since the AWB expired. Studies by the DOJ and Harvard have concluded that the AWB had little effect in reducing crime. The UK prides itself on their gun laws and leads Europe in violent crime per capita. It’s more dangerous than Somalia and this is the country people claim we should emulate?
I don’t point out your factual inaccuracies and straw man arguments to give you a hard time but rather point out that it’s a fundamental lack of knowledge on firearms and firearm laws that lead to misguided intentions. If you want to have a calm, rational conversation you have to speak from a foundation of truth and not regurgitate the talking points of the Brady group.
posted by: tmzphoto | January 30, 2013 10:13am
Comments like johnnyb’s show the astonishing ignorance of some anti-gun people. Firearms are not magical evil talismans that cause otherwise sane and good people to commit heinous acts. Why shouldn’t I own 20-30 guns? They’re legal, 20-30 is actually a pretty small collection, and I can only shoot one at a time anyway. Maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger could shoot one rifle in each hand, but I doubt it. And I can’t set them all up and fire them by remote control or something. The number is really irrelevant, and they aren’t going to march out of my safe and spontaneously attack the neighborhood. As former military, current civilian, and avid training enthusiast, I have hundreds of hours of firearms training, including everything from handguns at point blank range, to precision rifles at 1000 yards. This is more training than most police officers get in their entire careers. I buy ammunition in lots of 1000 rounds, because I can go through that much in a single weekend training class. It’s cheaper that way, and the ammo is on hand when I need it. I do it out of simple practicality, for the same reason people buy in bulk at BJ’s. Buying in bulk is less expensive, especially when you use a lot of something. I don’t have mulitple guns to feel safe, but because I enjoy it. Non-shooters think a single round of ammo is like a cruise missile with one shot, one kill. So 1000 rounds means a 1000 dead people. Sorry, but the truth is, it doesn’t work that way. It takes thousands of rounds to achieve proficiency, and thousands more to stay that way. Shooting is a perishable skill. Firearms are tools. Nothing more. Having mulitple guns means being able to choose the right for the job. In point of fact, more people are killed with hammers every year, than long guns of all types, which includes shotguns. Guns are not the problem. It’s people. All of these incidents were committed by people with long records of mental illness, yet our society has decided it is wrong to label or institutionalize the mentally ill. Even in our schools, troubled kids need to be “mainstreamed”, because we don’t want to stigmatize them. We need sane laws, pun intended, on how we deal with the mentally ill. Not laws to punish the law abiding citizen who has committed no offense, since criminals by their very definition, have no problem with not following the laws.
posted by: sanecitizen | January 30, 2013 10:26am
@Johnnyb
It’s unfortunate you don’t provide any statistics or information to support your opinion that additional laws would make us safer. This is mostly likely why you have to resort to salacious accusations and misleading statements. Your comments are obviously designed to portray gun owners in a degrading manner. That’s not constructive.
More, it’s silly. The recent crimes against society have not involved crazed NRA members with dozens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition, it’s been young, mentally disturbed men with a single rifle and a couple hundred rounds. Why are you attacking the collector or the sport shooter (the only ones would would fit your criteria)?
Also the comment about the firepower of a seal team is laughable. You either are willfully, or ignorantly, misleading but both are a dangerous basis to form a statement. Five minutes on the Google machine will show you the difference between military the select fire military M4 and the Bush master civilian rifle.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 30, 2013 10:30am
Mopar, you said “responsible gun owner becomes the irresponsible gun owner and he kills his
wife or girlfriend, or he goes after family members that have angered him,
or he goes after his co-workers, or he meets the police who have been called
to the scene via someone calling 9-1-1”
Sorry Mopar but the amount of times this happens with people who have permits, is so low that they dont even count it.
As for your random limits on my gun rights allow me to quote the great Henson Ong from Waterbury. Check You Tube to see what I mean.
“The second amendment is the only amendment that you can only make a mistake with once.”
posted by: Mopar | January 30, 2013 3:40pm
That wasn’t me that said that Joe. I was there in Hartford testifying to protect my right to self defense. Proud CCDL member here, Joe.
posted by: Mopar | January 30, 2013 3:44pm
And I’m proud to say I got to shake Henson’s hand when he was done. It seems some of the most patriotic Americans left in the country are the ones that weren’t born here.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 30, 2013 5:06pm
Mopar, I’m sorry. I had switched people I was responding to in my head.
Thanks for taking the time and being a member of CCDL. I need to join up and will do that once I hit submit
posted by: stellablu122 | January 30, 2013 9:52pm
@Mopar
You said it perfectly ” What good would just showing a permit do? It might be forged, or revoked.” a gun permit be forged. I mean with the new state ID’s it could be made very difficult to forge an type of ID.
Yeah your right and so could We don’t ‘just’ show our permit to purchase a gun. We spend about 10 minutes filling out forms, and then the permit and form info is called into the state police, who then check to make sure your permit is still valid. This can take another 5 minutes, or another 45 minutes, or in about 10% of the cases, several days.
That is great to hear so it makes perfect sense to do the same for ammunition.
Anyone over 21 can go buy as much ammmo as they want currently.
That is a free pass for criminals who get guns illegally and sorry Mopar the majority of those come from down south and from private guns shows, with no back ground checks, that end up on the streets of Hartford, New Haven, or Bridgeport.
Plus a ” right” does not mean it is not subject to Congress or a state legislature review or over sight.
I mean it harder to adopt a puppy than it is a to buy and own guns in this country. The standard should be the same in all 50 states.
It sounds like even though Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws they are fair and reasonable.
What is wrong with applying that standard to other states?
Oh one more thing can you say “hi” to Gayle Trotter for me? If you can post that link to her story of the mother with kids fighting off 5 or 6 hardened criminals with her bushmaster, I would greatly appreciate it.