Governor: No 'appetite' for more gun control in Connecticut

[Judi Lynn]

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]

1. No appetite?

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]

5. How about, he really likes the blood of murder victims over standing up to the NRA and gun zealots.

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]

2. The last election cost the Democrats 10 seats in the CT House

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]

24. One interesting fact about the state Senate.

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]

3. I wonder how

they would feel about it, if they could?

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Ah yes, we must always "think of the children"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

[Cryptoad]

7. Well I think the victims have a right

to be remembered even the children. But I am sure the GOP and NRA will not agree.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. They certainly do, but claiming that something needs to be done "in the name of the victims"...

...has been used as a cover for dodgy things in the past. September 11 is the most obvious example...

[Cryptoad]

9. Thanks,,, but Ill take my stand with the victims,,,,

no matter who thinks it dodgy,,,,,,

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. I'm curious-what does "stand with the victims" mean to you?

[Cryptoad]

11. It means exactly what it says.....

I will take a stand on this issue with the children victims memory...

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. And what stand would that be? Your responses have been somewhat, well, cryptic

No pun intended.

I'd remind you of an aphorism by a rather well-known Connecticut resident:

"Fine words butter no parsnips"

[Cryptoad]

13. If you have this hard of a time with my post

I will just leave it for you to interpret as you wish. Good Luck.

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Your statements have been somewhat generalized

What do you propose to *do*?

[GGJohn]

17. Sounds like a cop out.

You were asked a simple question and instead, you refuse to answer it.

[Oktober]

76. Obviously you just hate children...

There can be no other explanation...

[GGJohn]

16. They feel the same horror as did the vast majority of people

in this country, including gun owners.

[Cryptoad]

19. Their horror may be far greater

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]

20. So because there's no appetite for more gun control,

that means that people want to marginalize these victims?

[Cryptoad]

22. strange logic you have

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]

25. None of the laws passed since that horrible tragedy would have prevented it

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]

27. NO were have I suppported those state gun control laws they are al BS...

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]

29. Below is the listed types of Federal Firearm Licenses, see Type 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

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:

[Cryptoad]

30. QED

registered, highly regulated and very expensive to own.....

[Lurks Often]

46. And you are dreaming if you think that will be applied to regular firearms

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]

56. Sooner or later,,,,

we will have reasonable gun control......

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. In your own words, what would "reasonable gun control" entail?

[Cryptoad]

63. Reasonble Gun Control.

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]

66. Prior restraint of a civil right will never fly

[Cryptoad]

69. may i suggest the 9th amend for your reading pleasure,

[GGJohn]

67. And just who gets to determine who is

"reasonable, responsible" bonded people?
Some faceless govt hack?

[Cryptoad]

68. ,,,,, uhhhhhhh the bonding companies.?

[GGJohn]

70. So, some faceless hack gets to decide if I can exercise my constitutional

right to have a firearm? And I have to pay for that right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. The controllers are okay with ideas like these, as it's not a right *they* like

If the same was attempted with any *other* part of the Constitution, mass aneuryisms would ensue...

[GGJohn]

72. How true.

Substitute the 2A with the 1A and the howls of protest would be long and loud with a certain faction here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. Some of them have already been willing to elide infringements of the Fourth Amendment...

...in their eagerness to embrace Mayor .001% and Monsanto Mouthpiece Mom

[GGJohn]

74. Yup,

and there are a few here that would like to enact England or European style hate speech laws.

[Chan790]

90. I would accept European hate-speech laws...

though I revile them...if we also get Japanese gun-control laws as part of the package.

[GGJohn]

92. Nope, and nope.

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]

93. What Heller gave...SCOTUS can take away. :)

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]

94. SCOTUS ruled in favor of Heller and McDonald.

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]

78. What some people consider "reasonable," others do not.

What do you consider "reasonable?"

[Cryptoad]

79. to me,,,,,peole having sound judgment; fair and sensible

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]

82. Except that having a bonding company determine who's fit or who's not

to own a firearm is unconstitutional and would be struck down PDQ by the courts.

[Cryptoad]

84. No its not.....

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]

85. Yooouuuu just keep on believing that.

[Adrahil]

96. Yeah.... No.

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]

95. That's not an answer...

You basically said nothing there.

[ileus]

4. Elections must be coming up...

[Paladin]

45. Yeah, plenty of smug pro-gun militants coming out of the crevices.

Election season, for sure.

[Chan790]

91. Actually, Dannel Malloy was just reelected less than a year ago.

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]

15. No "appetite"

For passing another law that will not be enforced like the other 20,000 or so on the books.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

54. You'd think that would make it even easier to pass.

After all, who really cares about laws being passed that are never enforced?

[Jefferson23]

18. He is full of shit. n/t

[GGJohn]

21. Why is full of shit? eom.

[Jefferson23]

23. Don't get me started. My comment is a broad one and Malloy is not doing what

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]

26. If you want to discuss state politics.

Your always welcome to start a discussion in the Connecticut forum. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1042

[Jefferson23]

44. Thank you, NutmegYankee...I appreciate that.

Mallloy ticks me off so much.

On a positive note, we may get near 50 degrees by mid week.

[Hoyt]

28. It's tough standing up politically to gun loving yahoos like this --

[GGJohn]

31. Same pictures,

different day.

[Hoyt]

34. Gun fanciers pretty much look alike, act alike too.

[GGJohn]

36. What ever you say.

[NaturalHigh]

41. None of those guys look like me...

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]

42. Keep one or two at home. More, or public toting are not in society's best interest.

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]

43. I have two at home. Thinking about getting one more.

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]

77. Society's best interests, were taken off the table where guns are concerned...

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. One’s 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]

80. The bill of rights does not mean you are required to be a gun toting yahoo, one actually makes that

choice

[GGJohn]

83. But it does give us that right and I utilize it.

Here in AZ, we don't even have to get a permit to carry, our legislature trusts it's citizens.

[Hoyt]

86. Yeah, people have all kinds of rights that aren't good for other folks.. I'm familiar with your

state goverment.. Did you help elect them?

[GGJohn]

87. WOW!!!!!

Yeah, people have all kinds of rights that aren't good for other folks..

So you would be in favor of hate speech laws?

[Hoyt]

88. No I'm for people doing the right thing, even if they have a right to do something.

A concept gun fanciers, among others, can't seem to grasp.

[GGJohn]

89. Your interpretation of the right thing is different from mine and millions of others. eom.

[Cryptoad]

32. GOP: A gun for every idiot and an idiot for every gun....

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]

33. I'm curious, how do you know there are less gun owners?

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]

35. Well, you are an example. In the year you have been posting here, you've gone from 3 gun safes to

at least four.

[GGJohn]

37. Does that bother you?

BTW, I haven't been posting here for a year, you're thinking of someone else.

[Hoyt]

38. Oh sorry, in less than 6 months, you've gone from 3 to 4 gun safes. n/t

[GGJohn]

39. Have I?

I don't believe I've ever claimed that. Do you have a link to me saying that here?

[Lurks Often]

48. Hoyt are you making up lies again?

I'm sure that you can provide a link to your claim or are you just making shit up again?

[GGJohn]

49. Oh, I'm certain that he's making shit up again.

I've never said I've acquired an additional safe since I joined here.

[Lurks Often]

50. I'm certain too, it's what I have come to expect from him

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]

97. There always the Ignore feature

[Lurks Often]

98. And miss all his unintentionally funny posts? Never

[Hoyt]

51. Ask him how many he has?

[Lurks Often]

52. I'll take that as yes, you are lying and making shit up again

Since you failed to provide a link and probably didn't even bother to try and find the non-existent post anyway.

[GGJohn]

53. Ask me yourself. eom.

[Cryptoad]

40. To Witt:

NRA trolls use the same logic that is used to deny Global Warming...... lmao!

[Lurks Often]

47. Here are statistics from the past 30 years

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

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.

[Cryptoad]

55. ,,,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html

[GGJohn]

57. It's more likely that gun ownership isn't down,

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]

58. Seems you really don't grasp numbers too well.

especially if they don't come from the NRA.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. "Sounds good to me" is not a valid indicator of accuracy...

[Cryptoad]

61. Good for you,,,,,

[GGJohn]

62. It seems you don't grasp common sense.

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]

64. hey,,,,, they are coming to get you!

[GGJohn]

65. Who's coming to get me?

And what does that have to do with my post?
Can you prove me wrong?

[wordpix]

75. "doing enough to prevent from happening again in CT" ---I don't see it, Governor

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]

81. Of course you don't see it.

There is nothing in the proposal that would have stopped it in the first place.