Seeking Common Ground on Gun Violence Legislation

Are legislators moving too fast? Too slow? Proposals going too far, or not far enough? A Newtown Action Alliance meeting provides an opportunity for the exchange of ideas and concerns.

The speed with which state legislators should move to enact new laws in response to the school shooting in Newtown emerged as a central theme of a town hall meeting Tuesday night.

Hit the brakes, some said. Put it in high gear, others encouraged the six legislators sitting on a panel organized by Newtown Action Alliance, a grassroots group pushing for legislative change. The legislators all are members of , which was created to come up with legislative proposals that will help prevent another tragedy like the one on Dec. 14, 2012, when 20 first graders and six educators were gunned down at Sandy Hook School.

In what state Sen. John McKinney, R-28, called “a very ambitious goal,” the task force had anticipated that each subcommittee — divided by the three issues in its name — would come up with proposals by Feb. 15, and then all 50 members would present a final package of proposals by Feb. 27. The School Security Subcommittee put forth its recommendations on Feb. 19, McKinney said, and the other two are forthcoming.

“I think we all agree our goal is to get it right, not done by the deadline,” he said.

Still, a handful of residents called for the task force to slow down. “Things are moving far too quickly,” Newtown resident Liam Heller said to light applause among the crowd of about 100 people, mostly from town.

Encouraging legislators to wait until an official police report is released, documenting the circumstances that led 20-year-old Adam Lanza to open fire at the school on that December morning, Heller said, “What we’re hearing in the media isn’t true.”

McKinney countered that, while a complete report is not yet available, the information provided by Connecticut State Police to date is factual. “He’s not lying,” McKinney said of state police Lt. J. Paul Vance, “when he comes out and says it was the gun used,” referring to an AR-15. “It was the gun used.”

“We have to deal with fact,” added state Rep. Larry Cafero, R-142.

The AR-15 was one of the weapons Lanza had taken from his mother, Nancy Lanza, after he shot and killed her in their Newtown home, police said. A handgun was another, and that was the weapon that Lanza, who reportedly suffered from some degree of mental health issues, used to kill himself.

Heller was not alone in asking for legislators to take their time. One woman from Sandy Hook said, “We really need to slow down.”

Sheila Matthews, a representative of the mental health nonprofit AbleChild.Org, said, “There is definitely a push to force legislation down our throats.”

According to Matthews, the focus on gun laws and school security was a diversion from the real issue at the core of it all — mental health — and what she argued are scientifically and statistically backed reports, kept from the public, that reveal a direct correlation between prescription drugs and violence and suicide, particularly among children.

“This is a diversion. This is a complete diversion,” she said. “Slow it down.”

As Matthews continued to go on, residents in the audience, legislators and members of Newtown Action Alliance told her to wrap it up and sit down. “Search your souls,” she told the legislators.

‘Please Don’t Slow Down’

For every person asking legislators not to rush, there were those who encouraged them to keep up the pace.

Paul D’Agostino, a self-described Newtown dad, was one. “Please don’t slow down,” he said to applause.

Legislation is simply a means to an end and is not the ultimate goal, he said. “They’re outcomes we’re trying to effect,” he told the legislators.

D’Agostino then suggested the task force think about the longer term — five to 10 years out — and create some sort of enduring body that would be charged with reviewing any newly created legislation to track its progress and mitigate any unintended consequences. “I hate to see it be a one-and-done situation,” he said.

Cafero, a 20-year legislator, said the task force has not discussed that possibility yet. He explained that legislators are constantly reviewing the performance of bills, but priorities often shift with each session.

Another father, Darren Wagner of Sandy Hook, said, “Please continue at your pace.”

Wagner, who said he left a career in law enforcement after suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), added, “I want action. It’s not too soon.”

In response to the competing timelines from residents, Po Murray, the co-chair of Newtown Action Alliance, told Patch after the meeting, “I think there are more of us that want action.”

State Rep. Dan Carter, R-2, said, “We’re trying our very best not to ramrod this through.”

What’s On the Table?

While the question of ‘when’ loomed large Tuesday night, the other topic on people’s minds was what are the proposals the Task Force is leaning toward. And like with the timeline, residents had different ideas about what is needed — and what isn’t.

While the Task Force is looking at three issues, much of the discussion centered around guns, gun laws and gun violence.

All six legislators repeatedly said that they have talked about every angle and possibility that one can come up with, and that all options are on the table. It is the areas where there is common ground that they will seek to take immediate action.

One such area, legislators said and the majority of residents who spoke seemed to agree, is putting in place a permit process for purchasing “long guns,” like rifles and shotguns. Currently, in Connecticut, a permit is only required when purchasing a handgun — and that includes a background check as well as a mandatory safety class.

Other gun-related proposals discussed, some similar to those proposed by President Barack Obama, include:

  • Assault rifle ban
  • Magazine limits
  • Universal background check
  • Tighter regulations around sales
  • Gun offender registry program
  • Gun buy back programs

Other residents urged legislators to first review existing gun laws and better enforce them before enacting new ones, some noting that criminals do not follow laws and, therefore, law-abiding citizens are the ones who suffer and who, potentially, could be put at greater risk.

Another resident suggested that legislators consider using civil liability as a tool. “We have strict liability for dog owners, but not for gun owners,” she said.

Donald Borsch Jr., of Bethel, a self-described “filthy, registered Libertarian Independent,” posed a series of rhetorical questions, asking legislators if they will be able to guarantee no more gun violence, and then said, “You can’t legislate morality.

In response, McKinney drew the loudest applause of the night when he said he would never stand up and say legislation will stop all gun violence, but that the state should do whatever it can to make Connecticut safer.

The Process Moving Forward

The Task Force has already held four hearings, including one in Newtown, as it has sought to gather public input on the issues. The subcommittees are working on their final proposals, which will then be considered by the full task force.

Legislators in attendance Tuesday night said they expect the full package of proposals to be the subject of a final public hearing before it goes to the floor for a vote. They further related that it’s likely there will be at least three separate bills, one for each issue, and possibly other related bills that will move through the process, too.

A Model for Washington

As the meeting ran its course, legislators and residents began to remark and compliment each other about how civil and open-minded everyone was being. “I’m encouraged by what I’m seeing tonight,” said one gun owner.

“These issues and this event hit all of us in a way that we realize we shouldn’t be doing those types of things,” McKinney said, referring to the partisanship that has plagued Washington and, at times, reared its head in Hartford.

“Meaningful change can arrive in Connecticut, and Newtown can drive it,” said state Rep. Mitch Bolinsky, R-106, who districts includes about 90% of Newtown.

Reflecting on the night, Murray said she was appreciative of how cordial the speakers were. She was particularly pleased that gun owners had come to share their thoughts. “I think it went really well. I’m feeling optimistic,” she said.

Admittedly new to the entire process, earlier in the evening, Murray called herself and those involved in Newtown Action Alliance “accidental activists.”

Jim Eastwood February 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM
To All Enforce the EXISTING LAWS before proposing new ones!! Neither side is right on this issue, nor is either side wrong !!! Slow Down--Think with your Head NOT YOUR EMOTIONS !!! I would support a "Waiting period" in buying "Long Guns" and a Background check similar to WHAT IS IN PLACE ALREADY for Hand Guns. I would not support FOI for existing Permit Holders to be made Public. BEFORE you go running off on this issue--ask yourself this 1. Will this really stop the illegal activities and obtaining of Illegal weapons??? 2. How Many of those "Numbers" of Gun Dealths were committed with Legal weapons?? Enhance the second Ammendment do not destroy it !!!!! Stay Out of the Legal, Law abiding peoples Private lives --just enforce what you have. To the Politicians-----STOP YOUR GRAND STANDING--Yes Me President you also---There has to be a common ground and let's ALL work towards it.
Thomas Paine February 21, 2013 at 01:27 PM
Why hurry with the most consequential firearms legislation this state has considered in over 20 years? The Sandy Hook Commission is not due to present their report until last Spring - wouldn't it be a good idea taking their findings into consideration with any new laws? Why an omnibus bill? Why use e-certification? Is the dominant party in Hartford trying to not let a good crisis go to waste? http://wilton.patch.com/blog_posts/an-open-letter-to-all-elected-officials-in-hartford Is anyone in Hartford looking at the US Justice Department memo that finds that some of the laws being considered in Hartford will make little to no difference? http://wilton.patch.com/blog_posts/justice-department-says-assault-weapon-band-and-magazine-limits-wont-make-a-difference Is anyone in Hartford considering the REAL WORLD impact of the most commonly "demanded" changes? http://wilton.patch.com/blog_posts/cagvmarch-for-change-legislative-proposal-a-critical-review Has anyone in Hartford looked at the state's own OLR report showing that firearms based on the Armalite Rifle design (AR15) are RARELY used in rampage shootings? http://wilton.patch.com/blog_posts/mass-shooting-weapons-are-not-typically-black-rifles-nor-any-rifle Is anyone in Hartford heeding the words of Newark Mayor Corey Booker on the efficacy of rifle bans and magazine limits? http://wilton.patch.com/blog_posts/newark-nj-mayor-cory-booker-on-guns-gun-violence-and-law-abiding-citizens Just sayin'.
Greg Buonincontri February 21, 2013 at 02:07 PM
Jim - I could not agree more. The only thing else I would add that could add value and help to reduce the criminal side of this issue is to put into lace a requirement to provide proof of a current vaild gun permit in order to purchase ammunition.
H Tuttle February 21, 2013 at 05:36 PM
Mr. Eastwood, there is a "waiting period" to buy long guns in CT already - UNLESS one have a valid pistol permit, which means you've ALREADY gone through a training class, fingerprinting, waiting period to get the license and need to renew it each five years. If you have a valid pistol permit you can go into an FFL dealer and walk out with a long arm, but, again, you've already been "cleared." The majority of these proposals would do nothing but act as "feel good" legislation. And I know if they do put in NY-style restrictions many people will conduct civil disobedience and not comply. But I agree fundamentally with your thought to enforce existing laws. Those who aren't involved in shooting sports have no idea just how many laws and restrictions are already in place and buy the press blather.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 21, 2013 at 06:29 PM
Thomas, Oh, wait...were you saying something that would deflate all current agendas to push for more gun control in CT? Huh. You need to get with the program, Paine. We ALL KNOW that guns need to go. And if we can't ban them outright (yet), we can at least punish law-abiding gun owners as much as possible. Besides, we all know that Thomas Paine was a racist, right-wingnut from back in the day who hated government, so of course you would use his name and visage as your own. Hater. It's obvious your pro-gun sentiment is based in your fringe desire to usurp President Obama, His Name Be Praised, and His Holy Agenda. I've read about people like you on ALL the reliable news sources: NY Times, Huff Po, Wash Po, MSNBC, Daily Kos, Chuck Todd's Twitter account, Media Matters, LA Times, etc. LOL!
Jim Eastwood February 21, 2013 at 06:38 PM
"H" Thanks for clearing that matter Up----I thought so, but I and all who read this column needed to know that !!!!!!!! Thanks again What I worry about is Nation wide legislation--Yes we do need a standard overwhelmin or over ruling Individual State's Rights Thanks again and I hope we(all ) reaavch a Middle Ground !!!!
Tucker February 21, 2013 at 07:31 PM
I posted this comment to a report that a man in Fairfield had 3 guns stolen from his home recently. I know there is a lot of emotion regarding this subject (myself included) but I stand by what I said. Except the name calling ... that was immature. Tucker 10:46 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 Ooh Ooh Ooh ... Let's FINE HIM for not being a responsible gun owner. If the second amendment junkies hearts will stop beating without their guns let's fine them enthusiastically when they don't properly secure their weapons. That way we aren't "taking their guns and peeing on the constitution" yet we're holding them responsible. That's what this argument is all about isn't it? Personal responsibility? I don't want to take your guns. If, however, you cannot account for those guns, regardless of circumstances, you will pay a hefty price. It will pale in comparison to the damage they may do in the wrong hands ... but it's your gun and it's your fault it ended up in those hands. So you're at fault as well as the person who illegally obtained your weapon. No vilification needed. If you want a gun legally then have at it. Everything that weapon does from that point forward is your responsibility. Unless it's legally sold of course. At that point it's the new owners problem.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 21, 2013 at 08:18 PM
Tucker, So we should fine Nancy Lanza, then, since her guns were stolen? How's that going to work, exactly? I mean, she's dead. The first one shot, to be precise, on that December morning. Oh, wait. I get it. You were being facetious. My apologies.
Tucker February 21, 2013 at 08:27 PM
Donald-She paid her fine with her life. If she were more responsible and had her weapons locked up maybe the situation would have been different or wouldn't have happened at all and this conversation wouldn't be so publicly heated. I honestly don't know why people would have a problem with this. If you want to own a weapon you need to be responsible for it, end of story. To say that it shouldn't be considered because of enforcement difficulties is a weak argument at best.
Jason Silver February 21, 2013 at 10:47 PM
The NRA naided it on the head with their new television ad. Go get 'em boys! Just upped to a life membership. Watch and learn my friends.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSpMSG-F2Cw&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active
Donald Borsch Jr. February 22, 2013 at 12:32 AM
Tucker, Indeed. So if you failed to lock your house and someone walked in and shot you, would you be deemed as "irresponsible"? Or if you didn't lock your car door and someone stole it to commit a crime, would you be deemed "irresponsible"? Tucker, thus far I have been suitably impressed with your comments. You are well-spoken, and sensible, even though I heartily disagree with you. But to insinuate that my private gun, in my private house, on my private property, needs to be locked up according to your standards is ridiculous. It is simply none of your concern, sir. You only need to be concerned with yourself, and with your property, and with your family's safety. You're not allowed to dictate to me or anyone what we should do with our legal and Constitutionally-protected firearms. For all you know, I have a gun safe capable of withstanding three sticks of dynamite. Or I might have them on the kitchen counter, in the bathrooms, in the garage, all loaded and off of 'safe'. It's not your concern, sir.
Tucker February 22, 2013 at 01:04 AM
Donald-I think the crux of our argument is that everyone should be responsible for themselves and their families. However, you believe that you should be responsible for the firearm in your home and that my family and I should respect that. In a way I do understand. It is your right to have your firearm laying on the counter, loaded and ready to go. Now if someone broke into your house, managed to take that firearm out of your house and use it to harm my family I now hold you partially responsible. As you know, probably better than I do, a gun is a massive responsibility. It is your choice, as well as your right to own that firearm. I have absolutely no qualms with that. We differ drastically on the responsibility you hold in owning that weapon. I guess what I'm trying to say, and poorly mind you, is if you want to own a gun why wouldn't you want to do everything within your power to secure that weapon from any potential misdeeds that could arise? I understand personal liberty but where is your personal responsibility? Sure, your responsible for the firearm in your home, but what happens if/when someone takes it from your house? I do not own a gun (yet.) My concern is with the safety of my family, as yours should be with the safety of your family. It's my belief that if you have a firearm in your home your concern must also be with the safety of my family because of that firearm. Am I wrong?
Donald Borsch Jr. February 22, 2013 at 01:40 AM
Shotgun Joe Biden speaks wisely! WestConn was privileged to have him today at his invite-only meeting to discuss your gun rights, you peasants. http://www.perigonmedia.com/shotgun-joe-at-westconn-part-2-scare-tactics-fetch-my-shotgun/
Donald Borsch Jr. February 22, 2013 at 01:46 AM
Tucker, "Now if someone broke into your house, managed to take that firearm out of your house and use it to harm my family I now hold you partially responsible." Bull poopage. Tucker, if someone breaks into my house this is illegal. If they steal my gun, this is illegal. If they use it to harm you or your family, this is illegal. At what point in all this illegal activity did he have my complicity or permission? Did Nancy Lanza give permission to her demented son to shoot her, steal her legal guns, and kill innocents? Come on, Tucker. Come on. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Sure, you're responsible for the firearm in your home, but what happens if/when someone takes it from your house?" If that ever were to happen, Tucker, it is a guarantee I am dead, so it would be a moot point to seek me out to punish me for being "irresponsible". ----------------------------------------------------------------- "I do not own a gun (yet.) My concern is with the safety of my family, as yours should be with the safety of your family. It's my belief that if you have a firearm in your home your concern must also be with the safety of my family because of that firearm. Am I wrong?" Nope. Not at all. And I would applaud your realization that to own a firearm is a HUGE responsibility. (continued)
Donald Borsch Jr. February 22, 2013 at 02:01 AM
Tucker, continued... As a gun owner, and as an Infantry Veteran, I walk in a definite sense of high personal discipline and self-control. I need to. I would say it is a sobering responsibility to have a piece of metal and plastic that can determine the life span of an assailant. Indeed, indeed. On this we 100% agree, Tucker. (alert the media) I would add that your nervousness and anxiety about wanting a gun but fearing it will place your family in danger is unsettling to me. I would recommend you NOT purchase a firearm until you are mentally and emotionally ready to bear that burden. For myself, my family is totally cool with firearms, and they understand them with respect and NOT with fear. For truly, they have nothing to fear from a gun. At all. Ever. If indeed you wish to dialogue about the mentality needed to properly own a firearm, and the discipline it requires, we can do it together. No kidding. No joke. No strings attached. I would be honored and privileged to introduce you properly to gun ownership the right way.
Tucker February 22, 2013 at 02:50 AM
Donald-I'm not as efficient a writer as you so there is some confusion. Sorry. I agree completely that someone breaking into your house and stealing your gun is illegal. Nancy Lanza wasn't complicit in her son's illegally obtaining those guns but she could have locked the weapons to keep them from her "demented son"-of which there is no question. She left them out in the open and a lot of families are suffering because of it. She didn't give permission but she did nothing to prevent it. As a gun owner that onus is on you. You're right, if someone got your gun (probably by killing you) and used it to commit a crime there would be no point in finding you because you'd be dead. I'm sorry but again ... your gun, your responsibility. This is how a legal gun becomes an illegal gun. If it were secured properly maybe this wouldn't have happened. If you were trying to defend yourself and lost ... well I need to think about that for a bit. Can we revisit that one? There is no nervousness or anxiety on my part about owning a gun nor is there within my family. I am mentally and emotionally ready for that responsibility as well. I'm aware of the responsibility and consequences of pulling the trigger. If my theoretical gun were stolen I would accept whatever came my way. And as I write this I'm beginning to see your side of this a little more clearly. I would be a responsible gun owner but doubt your ability to do the same. Damn. So what's the answer or answers? (continued)
Tucker February 22, 2013 at 03:01 AM
Donald (continued...) If I decide to have a weapon in my home that weapon is no one's responsibility but my own. That's all. How we go about defining what makes the gun safe in my home is a conversation that should be conducted with a lot of people. It may be my right to leave my theoretical gun on the table, loaded but it should be my responsibility to protect everyone else from that gun regardless of circumstance. I appreciate your offer to continue this dialogue and may take you up on it, regardless of how far apart our ideologies are.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 22, 2013 at 03:08 AM
Tucker, You said: "She left them out in the open and a lot of families are suffering because of it. She didn't give permission but she did nothing to prevent it." Prove this. Did you see into her house? Did she have a gun safe? Were the firearms spread willy-nilly and openly available to her son? I ask this because I have read about it. Have you? --------------------------- "You're right, if someone got your gun (probably by killing you) and used it to commit a crime there would be no point in finding you because you'd be dead. I'm sorry but again ... your gun, your responsibility." I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Your kitchen knives can kill just as easily as my firearms. If a criminal stole them from your house and used them to kill with, would you be responsible? So why then should anyone be penalized for having firearms in their home if a similar situation occurred? ----------------------------- "I would be a responsible gun owner but doubt your ability to do the same." Umm...can you explain this one to me? ----------------------------- (c0ntinued)
Winston Bernard IV February 22, 2013 at 03:14 AM
What a bunch of BS coming from the Veep and Gov. Manipulating the simple minded for political edge.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 22, 2013 at 03:15 AM
Tucker, continued- You previously made references to being concerned with the safety of your family when you finally bring a firearm into your house. I misunderstood your meaning. I thought you were expressing fear and doubt about making sure your family was safe from the gun you were bringing in, as if it would somehow fall into the hands of your children (if you have them), and they wold shoot themselves accidentally or something along those lines. My apology for not reading you clearly. I know some folks are jittery about having a gun in their homes when they have children. And because of this they refuse to get one. However, like anything that can harm your child, a gun is not exactly left on the floor, loaded, and readily available to them. The anti-gun crowd is screaming that all gun owners MUST lock-up their guns in safes, lest they somehow fall into evil hands or somehow leave the house of their own accord and kill someone. Well, hold on a sec. Let's look at this closer. Why is the immediate presumption that gun owners as a whole do not already have their firearms properly secured and safe from thievery and/or disallowed tampering, as in with a child? I know many of them are seeking to paint this picture that Nancy Lanza is solely to blame for her son's actions because she OBVIOUSLY left her firearms out in the open. Well, again, can anyone prove this, or is it merely a convenient lie to tell to advance an agenda? (continued)
Donald Borsch Jr. February 22, 2013 at 03:23 AM
Tucker, continued- I have yet to meet any gun owner I personally interact with who treated their firearms with such an irresponsible and reckless attitude. Like I have mentioned, gun ownership is a HUGE responsibility, and not one to be taken lightly. One does not simply wander into a gun shop and stroll out with a handgun or rifle or shotgun like it is no big deal. Buying any firearm is not to be equated with buying underwear. Let me ask boldly: Have you fired a handgun? A shotgun? A rifle? Have you been to a legit firing range and observed proper range safety protocols? Have you cleaned a firearm, using toothbrushes, Hoppe's #9, gun oil, a ramrod with a bristle brush, and an old t-shirt? Have you hunted before? Have you served in any Armed Service? Have you been to a gun shop? Have you read CT Law on guns? So many questions, I know, I know. Take your time to answer if you are able to. I'm beginning to see things differently in regard to you, Tucker. Your comments and inquiries are intelligent and well-reasoned.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 22, 2013 at 03:25 AM
Tucker, You said: "It may be my right to leave my theoretical gun on the table, loaded but it should be my responsibility to protect everyone else from that gun regardless of circumstance." Sir, if I steal that firearm, or overpower you and tie you up in your own house and take that firearm, how in the world is what I do with it your responsibility? Please consider what you said logically, for in my hearing it is completely illogical.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 22, 2013 at 03:35 AM
Tucker, I did find this in regards to current CT law about guns. It says that, well, just read it. ----------------------------------------------------------- --Child Access Prevention and Safe Storage Law (Connecticut) Law Summary --The child access prevention law generally requires that no person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premise under their control if it is known or reasonably should be known that a minor age 15 and under is likely to gain access to the firearm with out permission unless the firearm is properly stored. A person can be held criminally negligent if the minor gains access to the firearm and causes injury or death to him/herself or another person. ------------------------------------------------------------ The words "reasonably" and "likely" cloud the verbiage, but you get the point.
Tucker February 22, 2013 at 03:52 AM
Donald, I've read a little. It was a poor choice of words. From what I've read (limited as it may be) she did not have the guns locked up. As in he had complete access to them. If I'm wrong, I apologize. From what I understand there was little question in her mind that he was a challenge that she couldn't handle on her own and was seeking help with/for him. I am in no way trying to blame Nancy Lanza for what happened. I am trying to say(again, not very eloquently) that she holds some of the responsibility. She had the opportunity to secure her weapons more effectively and didn't. That's all. I will argue that a gun is a far more effective tool for killing than a kitchen knife. I mean it's not as easy to stab someone (very intimate) as it is to point and squeeze a trigger. Pulling a trigger from 10 feet away and thrusting a blade into flesh are two very different things. I see what you're getting at though. "I would be a responsible gun owner ... " that was my realization that I trust myself enough to own a firearm but trust few others to have one. I may be wrong on this. My concern for the safety of my family is not from my own firearms, it's the fear of outside guns compromising the safety of my family. You didn't misread, I didn't articulate well enough. (continued)
Tucker February 22, 2013 at 04:09 AM
Regarding families being jittery about bringing guns into their homes. To me it's completely reasonable. Right? Probably not. What do the majority of Americans (right, left, middle, rich, poor, religious, atheist, etc.) see in the news? ALL NEWS? Stories of children accidentally shooting themselves in the face with an unsecured weapon. You may not know anyone who is as irresponsible with their weapons as this but obviously they're out there. Like everything else in the news cycle, we like to focus on the worst. Are there idiots who leave loaded guns within the grasp of children? Yes. Should they be punished. Yes. Harshly, IMO. What standards are in place to prevent this "idiots" from acquiring guns? It seems to me(and most I believe) there aren't enough. And yes, I've fired a handgun. I'm an Eagle Scout and come from a family of gun owners. I've fired a shotgun, and many rifles. I've taken apart a rifle, cleaned and oiled it. Yes, I've hunted. I have been to gun shops and honestly have no issue with the gun itself.Am I am expert? No. Not at all. My familiarity with CT gun laws is much more tenuous than I'd like to admit. And for the record, I'm not trying to further an agenda. I'm trying to understand the issue more comprehensively.
Edmund Burke February 22, 2013 at 02:24 PM
Tucker, It is a pleasant change to read your posts. This is the reasoned discussion we should be having about gun control. The law Donald quotes above can be rendered moot if the gun was obtained by illegal entry. Common law does not hold a person responsible for anticipating another persons illegal act. Leaving your keys in your car is stupid but not criminally or civilly liable if the car is stolen and used to commit a crime. Objects like car and guns are not actors in our legal system, gun control advocates seem to think they are.
Monty Hall February 22, 2013 at 05:00 PM
I think Obama is from Uganda. Would make a nice lyric,eh?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something