Congressional Gun Violence Task Force To Hold \”Field Hearing\” In Hartford

by Categorized: Gun control, Newtown Date:

Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA), chairman of the Congressional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force will hold a \”field hearing\” in Hartford next week, hosted by Rep. John Larson.

\"larsonGov. Dannel P. Malloy, Hartford Mayor Pedro Segarra, State Rep. Stephen Dargan, Hartford Schools Superintendent Christina M. Kishimoto, and Hartford Police Chief James Rovella are among the state and local officials slated to attend. The hearing will hear testimony from four panels of experts on gun violence reduction, urban and gang violence, mental health interventions, and school safety. The hearing is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Friday May 10 at the Hartford Public High School Law & Government Academy.

The event reflects efforts on the part of gun control advocates to revive momentum following the Senate\’s failure to pass a background check expansion, introduced as an amendment to a Senate gun bill. The bill was tabled after the amendment failed, but Larson has introduced legislation in the house identical to the bipartisan background check agreement.

Rep. Elizabeth Esty, whose district includes Newtown, is a member of the task force. Newtown Superintendent of Schools Janet Robinson testified at a hearing the task force held in Washington earlier this year.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

25 thoughts on “Congressional Gun Violence Task Force To Hold \”Field Hearing\” In Hartford

  1. The Conn-servative

    The second to last paragraph has background check underlined: it should be changed to registration list because this is what it is. I wonder if they are allowing anyone from the NRA to be on the so called task force, otherwise it’s a biased anti-gun committee.

    1. Bill

      So the NRA speaks for all gun owners? The NRA no longer speaks for me after I had to discontinue my NRA membership in the wake of their erratic response after what happened in Newtown. Count me as one of the 75% or 80% of gun owners (or whatever the number is) who disagree with some of the NRA’s positions when it comes to protecting my family. I’m the father of two girls. And let’s just say my wife is finally talking to me again after I broke off from the NRA.

      1. The Conn-servative

        I can’t/won’t comment on behalf of your family issues except that we all have them.
        With respect to the NRA,without them, there is no private gun ownership in the USA,regardless of the 2nd. I don’t agree with everything they have said in the past,but who else is going to fight for you? Blumenthal? Murphy? Schumer? Feinstein? I think you know the answers to all four. NO organization or SPOUSE is ever going to agree with you or your beliefs 100% of the time.
        Upper case to emphasize words – to bad if readers don’t like it.

      2. BillboyBaggins

        You are not an NRA member, but a phoney plant designed to misinform people.

        1. big Mike

          I too am an NRA member for a long time and I feel that this organization has done a lot of good with regard to safety and responsibility issues. However, it is no addressing the issues that I believe in which are universal background checks and straw purchasers. One gun a month is plenty for any gun owners and collectors. I am dam mad with the NRA. They are kow towing to the industry then the individual member.

          1. bkatz

            I believe anyone should be allowed to purchase any kind of gun they want at any time, without restriction. The government has no business in my business

  2. ccbeachcomber

    Honestly think it would be more productive for Larsen and his cronies to go after people living in the country without proper authority, citizenship or visa. Instead, this group of people chooses to go after limiting the basic rights of U.S. citizens. Supported by the Constitution no less. Illegal immigrants?

    1. The Conn-servative

      This is what makes regressives mental.Larson’s crony in crime, Rosa “the hag” Delauro is actually trying to convince that an illegal out of the New Haven area should not be deported back even though he has a criminal record and has been sent back 5 times previously! this illustrates why they are sick in the head. They take a situation that is wrong or illegal such as illegal immigration an attempt to justify it and take something that is legal and defined by the Constitution,such as the 2nd amendment and are attempting to dissolve it. Why do you idiots keep putting this kind of representation back into office?

      1. Palin Smith

        I personally witnessed paid poll workers in New Haven handing out copies of the ballots in November with just line B shown. They told everyone to vote Democrat line B. It’s legal but displays the workings of a well-organized political machine.

        Why do they keeping returning Rosa DeLauro to Washington? Many don’t even know who she is. I asked. But they vote Democrat – it’s the first thing they learn after momma.

  3. The Conn-servative

    Very true. They are a well oiled machine. Their electorate is very ignorant and will never be weened from the government nipple. That is why they’ll vote for anyone with a ‘D’ next to their name. As long as the freebies keep coming in, they’re content. Thinner city vote was the captured demographic back during Johnsons Great Society. Now it’s the illegal immigrant. This will, and is catapulting the political makeup of our country to the far left. I am concerned that the monster _itch Hillary will occupy the White House after BO. We are being pummeled into two distinct groups: The haves and the have nots because of them. The haves will make up no more than 10% of the population and will include the ever rising government class that we see growing here in CT and at the federal level. Just look at the instigators for both of those areas: BO and Malloy – hardcore socialists. This government includes the politically connected and well to do elitists who know what’s best for you. It’s interesting how the lamestream media has most Americans believing that the elitists are ONLY big corporation Republicans.Although some of that is true,I believe there exists an even greater percentage of those on the left who think their fecal matter doesn’t stink. Thanks for playing…

  4. A Great Day

    This is great news. Our progressive gun laws are forcing the companies that make these killing machines to flee our state. I say don’t let the door… We need to galvanize the inner city vote and the Progressive outreach through the dream act to the Latino community, and gay rights to the LGBT community to force the issue. Representatives Larsen, Esty, DeLauro, and Courtney Senator Murphy and Blumenthal and Governor Malloy are taking a courageous stand fighting the tea baggers and the NRA.This is just the beginning it is time to confiscate these guns and if you don’t like it move out of Connecticut. We need to make the schools safe for children there are just too many guns and we will no longer accept this. Tax and regulate the gun owners and ammunition and while the next generation is in our schools educate them that the Constitiution was written in the time of muskets and necessary hunting. It no longer applies. Get the guns out of our peaceful society.

    1. Wood2Spare

      Thanks for the laugh… You probably were also hoping that the Boston bombings were done by white heterosexual american males, it would have made it that much easier to push your liberal views and will on others.

  5. The Conn-servative

    I know this is your boiler plate post,but here goes.You idiots don’t need to galvanize the city vote.You already have it because you created it.The business about the muskets when the Constitution was written:that’s fine.We’ll also hit the ‘off’ button on the internet switch and the satelite switch to shut off your stupid cell phone (while you drive)and your cable tv. You can’t pick and chose what you deem a problem and base it and only it,on what was around when the Const. was written and how to get rid of it.

    1. A Great Day

      Its also time to hold the Neanderthals in the State Police who are slowing down to cause a backlog accountable. You seem mired in 1985 its 2013 get used to it. We run things now and will make society safer and value all not just the wealthy and self entitled heterosexual white males.

  6. William Diamond

    These gun violence task forces must have the NRA and other Second Amendment supporting organizations on board. The mayor of hartford and Malloy are or were both members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns which is a rabidly anti-rights movement funded by Michael Bloomberg.

    As we see, strict gun control laws are already at work in Chicago and New Jersey.

  7. RedLady

    I can’t wait for the door to hit me……bye, bye, blue CT! I will be glad to take my money to another state that allows me the right to protect myself and my property without all this baloney.

    1. Big Mike

      No, don’t leave RedLady, especially if you have a nice tush that the door is about to hit.

  8. Erik H

    In the last 20 years gun related fatalaties are down 39% while non-fatal gun crimes are down 69%. Look it up with the Bureau of Justice. This is the truth the Antis will not admit to. Also funny that the NRA is the single largest proponent & educator in gun safety in the land.
    The NRA works for me.
    The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with helping all of us protect ourselves and the Constitution.
    Something Larsen, Malloy, Blumenthal, DeLauro and Murphy DO NOT.

  9. Pingback: Congressional Gun Violence Task Force To Hold “Field Hearing” In Hartford | WTIC FOX CT

  10. Deal Breaker

    Background checks are only as useful as the information in its database–Hence, for any such registering of guns and background checks to be useful, are you willing to give up all your expectations of privacy regarding your medical and mental health history to the US government to peruse?

    If you ever had anti-depressant medicine, even for just after a major operation, or received mental health counseling because you were blue or dealing with grief, that could be the basis of some pencil pusher bureaucrat in government to determine by a strict set of rules that you cannot own a firearm. That’s infringement without due process. The Founding Fathers would call it tyranny.

    Oh, and maybe the government needs more information to add your background check to make such decisions! SUCH AS…. Failure to pay taxes on time, misdemeanors like traffic tickets, political affiliation that the Southern Poverty Law Center and Harry Reid deem radical and dangerous–the possibilities are endless for the government to take as much personal information about you, and decide if you can own a firearm. That’s infringement without due process. That’s Tyranny.

    Also, doesn’t it bother you in the least bit that government is not as conversely accommodating being transparent as it demands us to be? After all, if the Government has nothing to hide, what is it afraid of, hmmmm?

    A bombing occurs, we blame the bomber. A drunk driver kills someone we blame the driver, We have a shooting, we blame the firearm? LOGIC? By all rights-> pressure cookers and fireworks, should undergo a background check to purchase, and the feds keep a record of use.

    Also has anyone looked into the dangerous UN treaty on firearms. This treaty is to be signed by the president making firearm ownership illegal and/ or very restrictive. Essentially a loophole to go around the Second Amendment. This is our president agreeing to other nations demands, essentially giving other countries a voice in America.

  11. Deal Breaker

    When you can’t win the argument on facts, appeal to emotion….

    17Apr13-(Obama) said, “So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.”
    The people spoke and Congress upholds the Constitution and the President calls it shamefull. #$%$!!
    Wanting to change the Second Amendment in order to pass your desired gun restrictions, admits.. that what you want violates said amendment; If Senators can’t craft a bill to expand background checks; who actually believes they could successfully and correctly amend the Second Amendment and keep it within its original intent??

Comments are closed.