Governor: No 'appetite' for more gun control in Connecticut
Source: Associated Press
Governor: No 'appetite' for more gun control in Connecticut
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press | March 6, 2015 | Updated: March 6, 2015 4:16pm
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) Two years after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut's governor said he doubts the state legislature has the "appetite" to take up many of the additional gun control recommendations included in a final report released Friday by a state commission.
But Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said he does believe changes made since the Dec. 14, 2012, shooting, including many of the commission's early recommendations, have already improved public safety and changed lives. For example, the state has already passed legislation expanding its assault weapons ban, including the gun used by the Newtown shooter, and spent $43 million to improve security in about 1,000 schools.
"My hope is that we're doing enough in Connecticut to prevent this from happening again in Connecticut," he told The Associated Press in an interview, referring to the massacre that left 20 first graders and six educators dead. "My hunch is that things like this are going to happen in other states and there have been over 1,000 children shot since this time."
Hours before receiving the final 277-page report from the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, Malloy said he doesn't foresee Connecticut lawmakers in the near future considering measures beyond the sweeping legislation approved in 2013, which included the expanded assault weapons ban and a ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Malloy-some-Newtown-panel-recommendations-face-6119222.php
Roy Rolling
(6,943 posts)What "unicorns and rainbow" language. It sounds so harmless.
How about, he really likes the blood of murder victims over standing up to the NRA and gun zealots.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Really? Gov. Malloy?
Dumbest statement yet, Gov. Malloy is a strong proponent of gun control, however, he knows his limitations and knows when to back off.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and oddly enough 3 of the 5 people in leadership positions who pushed through the legislation as an "Emergency Certification Bill"* choose not to run for re-election in 2014:
The Senate Pro Tempore, a Democrat and the Republican Senate Minority Leader and the Republican House Minority Leader.
*Committee system[edit]
The General Assembly has 27 committees, all of which are joint committees; that is, their membership includes House and Senate members alike. Several committees have subcommittees, each with their own chair and special focus.
Before most bills are considered in either the House or Senate, they must first go through the committee system. The primary exception to this rule is the emergency certification bill, or "e-cert," which can be passed on the floor without going through committee first. The e-cert is generally reserved for use during times of crisis, such as natural disasters or when deadlines are approaching too quickly to delay action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_General_Assembly
NutmegYankee
(16,204 posts)The Senate discusses all bills in the committee room off to the right and only brings those to the floor that are expected to pass. One of the Senators gave me a tour a few years ago.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)they would feel about it, if they could?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)to be remembered even the children. But I am sure the GOP and NRA will not agree.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...has been used as a cover for dodgy things in the past. September 11 is the most obvious example...
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)no matter who thinks it dodgy,,,,,,
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)I will take a stand on this issue with the children victims memory...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)No pun intended.
I'd remind you of an aphorism by a rather well-known Connecticut resident:
"Fine words butter no parsnips"
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)I will just leave it for you to interpret as you wish. Good Luck.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)What do you propose to *do*?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You were asked a simple question and instead, you refuse to answer it.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)There can be no other explanation...
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)in this country, including gun owners.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)than those who just read the news......since most these kids were shot in head with .223 cal rifle at close range. Amazes me how many people want to marginalize these victims ,,,,,
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)that means that people want to marginalize these victims?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)but you shouildn't try to apply it to other people post. I have a bad habit of not conversing with people who want to tell me what I'm thinking,,,,,, Bye.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The monster who committed that horrible crime was not a felon, not adjudicated mentally defective, had never been involuntarily committed to a mental institution and was over the age of 18, so he would have passed a background check and been allowed to purchase a rifle or shotgun.
While the AR-15 and other rifles banned under the CT law due to primarily cosmetic features are no longer available, the Ruger Mini-14, which is a semi-automatic rifle firing the exact same rifle cartridge as the AR-15, is still available for purchase and a trip to RI, NH, VT, NH, ME or PA, will allow you to buy magazines holding more then 10 rounds if you didn't have then prior to the ban.
To put it more plainly, the laws pushed through as an "Emergency Certification Bill" which bypassed the committees, bypassed public hearings and input and rushed through in such a hurry that most of the state legislature had no time to actually read the whole thing, has done nothing to make the children of CT safer.
More regarding the e-cert here: http://articles.courant.com/2013-07-09/news/hc-gun-lawsuit-0710-20130709_1_keane-malloy-new-law
Now since it regarded guns, I'm sure that many here are ok with the abuse of state law although no emergency existed and no reason was given in writing (as required by law) as why the bill was an emergency.
One has to wonder how outraged DU would be if a legislature rammed through a bill using those same procedures listed above if the law banned abortions or same sex marriage or any other issue near and dear to DU.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)but while we are here,,,,,,Gun Control Laws only work at the Federal Level... MOF they work quite well, go out and try to buy a shoulder fired missile launcher,,,,,, the same process can be applied to all guns.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I'm not entirely sure that someone can't make or sell a shoulder fired missile launcher..........
And I know for sure that one can buy or make muzzle loading cannons and mortars and purchase breech loading cannons made before 1898 without a permit.
As for more modern stuff:
registered, highly regulated and very expensive to own.....
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)There has been no major gun control acts passed since 1994 and since then the gun control side has lost many of the major court decisions and lost in many of the state legislatures as CCW has become far more common then 1994.
The underlying laws of who can purchase a firearm under Federal law has changed much since 1968.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)we will have reasonable gun control......
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Federal Registration database for all guns. you can't control something without knowing what and where it is.
All guns are licensed and titled at the federal level only to "reasonable ; responsible " bonded people
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)"reasonable, responsible" bonded people?
Some faceless govt hack?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)right to have a firearm? And I have to pay for that right?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)If the same was attempted with any *other* part of the Constitution, mass aneuryisms would ensue...
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Substitute the 2A with the 1A and the howls of protest would be long and loud with a certain faction here.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...in their eagerness to embrace Mayor .001% and Monsanto Mouthpiece Mom
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and there are a few here that would like to enact England or European style hate speech laws.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)though I revile them...if we also get Japanese gun-control laws as part of the package.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Japanese style gun control laws will never happen in this country, there's that little thing called the 2A, which the SC has ruled that citizens have the right to own firearms.
And I would never agree to any hate speech laws.
Who determines what constitutes hate speech?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Don't be surprised if someday a better SCOTUS than we have today interprets the 2nd Amendment in a constructionist manner as meaning literally-and-solely that the National Guard (as there are no state militias) have the right to bear arms...and that no such right extends to the private citizen.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)And what would lead you to believe that a future SC will overturn Heller? Justices are loath to revisit settled law, hence, despite a RW court, Roe v Wade is still the law of the land and there's no indication that it will be overturned any time soon.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the true meaning of the 2A.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)What do you consider "reasonable?"
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Pretty sure bonding companies can define a reasonable person and create an algorithm to identify them and calculate the risk of them owning a firearm. This aint rocket surgery
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)to own a firearm is unconstitutional and would be struck down PDQ by the courts.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)precedent already exist for limitation of 2th amend rights... mof,,, the 9th amend grants that no Constitutional Rights are absolute. . its coming,,,,, sooner or later... sooner I hope. get ready for it....
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)That kind of thing ain't happening in my lifetime.
Even if I thought it were a good thing that (I don't), it just is not politically feasible.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)You basically said nothing there.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Paladin
(28,281 posts)Election season, for sure.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)There is just no political-will in the electorate here in CT for more gun-control laws.
The report went further than gun-control advocates' requests...we got nearly everything we asked for.
HoosierCowboy
(561 posts)For passing another law that will not be enforced like the other 20,000 or so on the books.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)After all, who really cares about laws being passed that are never enforced?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)he should on this issue and others....for many reasons he is failing the state.
He recently announced cuts, extensive, which flies in the face of the report
the state has after Sandy Hook in order to establish best practices so
we address the needs of the children and young people..taking a pro-active
role. He also is a governor that sells the bullshit that if you tax the rich
businesses they'll leave the state meme. He is, as I said, full of shit.
This is what he should be doing, Connecticut is a wealthy state, but he won't,
he'll instead disenfranchise those he should be protecting:
2 Years After Raising Taxes on the Rich, Here's the Hellscape Minnesota Has Become
http://mic.com/articles/111424/2-years-after-raising-taxes-on-the-rich-here-s-what-happened-to-minnesota-s-economy
NutmegYankee
(16,204 posts)Your always welcome to start a discussion in the Connecticut forum. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1042
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Mallloy ticks me off so much.
On a positive note, we may get near 50 degrees by mid week.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)different day.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)except for the unfortunate gut hanging over the trousers. Yet, I'm a proud supporter of the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
You already know this, but the great majority of 2nd Amendment supporters are not rednecks yelling yeehaw and firing their guns into the air whenever their team scores a touchdown. Most of us never even leave the house with our firearms. We just believe that people have the right to defend themselves and their families with their firearms if necessary.
My standard line: a good portion of the gun control crowd might take time to tsk-tsk if I were killed by a gun-wielding maniac, but if I were to shoot that maniac in self defense, they would roundly condemn me and want me thrown in jail.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)To keep you in gunz, we have to put up with gun wielding maniacs, racists, right wing militias, intimidators, and worse. Sorry, I don't believe it's worth it.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I can't see how my right to defend my family dangers or inconveniences you in any way.
This is all about control on the part of the anti-gun crowd, hence the "gun control" label.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Society's best interests, were taken off the table where guns are concerned, when they wrote the bill of rights and passed it into law.
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)choice
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Here in AZ, we don't even have to get a permit to carry, our legislature trusts it's citizens.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)state goverment.. Did you help elect them?
So you would be in favor of hate speech laws?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)A concept gun fanciers, among others, can't seem to grasp.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)MOF,,,, while the number of guns have increased, most are being bought by gun owners (idiots buying more guns)........ there is an actual decrease in the number of gun owners / capita
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Just because a poll says so? Isn't it just as possible that fewer people are admitting to owning firearms?
If someone were to ask me if I had firearms in my home, I'd either tell them no, none of your business, or to go pound sand.
It may very well be that there are many more gun owners in the country, but won't admit to it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)at least four.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)BTW, I haven't been posting here for a year, you're thinking of someone else.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I don't believe I've ever claimed that. Do you have a link to me saying that here?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I'm sure that you can provide a link to your claim or are you just making shit up again?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I've never said I've acquired an additional safe since I joined here.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and if Hoyt behaved this way toward any other of the issues here on DU considered important, he probably would have been banned by now.
Oh well, Hoyt's posts probably helps us more then he could ever hope to hurt us.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Since you failed to provide a link and probably didn't even bother to try and find the non-existent post anyway.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)NRA trolls use the same logic that is used to deny Global Warming...... lmao!
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)You'll note the lowest number was in 2000 and it trended up until 2007 when the rate started going back down. Give the ups and downs over the past 30 years, it would be premature to think that the decrease in the number of gun owners / capita will continue to trend down over the next 30 years.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)it's more likely that gun owners are refusing to tell an anonymous person that they have a firearm.
I know that if I were asked, I'd refuse to answer, as I suspect a significant number of firearms owners do.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)especially if they don't come from the NRA.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You really think that most gun owners will admit to an anonymous person over the phone, in person, over the internet that they have a gun in the home?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)And what does that have to do with my post?
Can you prove me wrong?
wordpix
(18,652 posts)I was involved in a high-power weapons shooting range issue in a small CT town recently and state police were right in the middle of the pro-gun group backing a landowner who proved to be a liar and tax cheat. Making it worse, the town has no firearm regulations or zone for shooting so there was no town oversight of the activity. Men were walking around the neighborhood open carrying, no one was checking, and shooting was going on day and night including at explosive targets. Neighbors who complained were ignored---until they won an appeal on the local level.
I am not impressed with Malloy at all but he's better than the repugs so I voted for him.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)There is nothing in the proposal that would have stopped it in the first place.