Malloy\’s Advisory Commission Calls For Banning Possession Or Sale Of Any Gun That Can Fire More Than 10 Bullets

by Categorized: 2014 Election, Gov. Dannel Malloy, Newtown, Sandy Hook, State of Connecticut Date:

Governor Dannel Malloy\’s handpicked commission on Sandy Hook is calling for some of the strongest gun-control measures in the nation, including the banning or possession of any gun that can fire more than 10 bullets without reloading.

The ban would be among the most far-reaching in the United States and comes in direct reaction to the use of a military-style assault rifle and 30-round magazines in the massacre of 20 children and six adult educators three months ago in Newtown.

\”This prohibition would extend to military-style firearms as well as handguns,\’\’ the commission\’s report says. \”Law enforcement and military would be exempt from this ban.\’\’

The commission\’s chairman, Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, noted in a letter to Malloy that some of the 42 recommendations are controversial.

\”I realize that you may agree with some of our interim recommendations and disagree with others,\’\’ Jackson wrote in a letter attached to the report.

The commission on Monday released its interim report after multiple hearings on the Newtown shootings, and it involved recommendations on school security, firearm storage, and gun registration.

The report did not mention any recommendations regarding mental health, which will be explored starting at a commission meeting this Friday. Jackson noted that the commission will continue working \”through the end of this year\’\’ and will react to the state\’s attorney\’s report that is expected in June.

The report was issued on the day that New York Daily News writer Mike Lupica reported that the shooter, Adam Lanza, had planned the attack for years and had compiled a spreadsheet measuring 7 feet by 4 feet that included details of numerous mass shootings around the world. Lupica said that his anonymous source was a police officer who attended a recent conference in New Orleans in which the top uniformed commander of the Connecticut state police, Colonel Danny Stebbins, delivered a detailed speech about the Newtown massacre.

The report also calls for:

- Mandatory background checks at gun shows and any other place of purchase for all firearms, including so-called long guns.

- Banning the sale, possession and use of any magazines that carry more than 10 bullets. Military and police use would remain legal.

-Banning sale and possession of all armor-piercing bullets, punishable as a Class D felony.

- Mandatory registration of all guns, in addition to a permit to carry.

- Requirement for firearms permits to be renewed, including \”a test of firearms handling capacity, as well as an understanding of applicable laws and regulations.\’\’

-Limiting the amount of bullets that can be purchased at one time.

-Study the \”best practices\’\’ to see the best ways of prohibiting the sale of ammunition through the Internet.

-Mandate that the seller of a gun must also make a trigger lock available to the purchaser.

State Rep. Craig Miner, a pro-gun Republican from Litchfield, had a strong reaction against the proposed ban on the possession of any magazine that could hold more than 10 bullets.

\”It seems to me when someone starts to ban something from an individual who bought it lawfully, owned it lawfully and did nothing to lose that right and has to divest themselves of it in some way, it seems to me if it\’s not a taking, it\’s pretty doggone close,\’\’ Miner said.

Miner, who said he doesn\’t personally own a 10-round magazine, said it would be highly difficult to collect magazines that were purchased legally and then later declared illegal.

\”It blows my mind,\’\’ Miner said. \”I think we could spend our time doing more important things if you\’re trying to have me justify the time it would take to figure out who has them and how many they have and whether they got them all. … We\’re going to take them away from people who bought them, cared for them, don\’t commit any crimes with them, and turn them loose on a society that\’s full of people who do just the opposite. So, you tell me. Is it a good idea?\’\’

Currently, the state has about 1.4 million registered guns, and the state police believe there could be as many as 2 million more that are not registered.

The commissioners stated that they believe in the Second Amendment, but they also believe in the Constitution\’s preamble that provides for \”domestic tranquility\’\’ and the nation\’s obligation to \”promote the general welfare.\’\’

\”All of us in government have engaged in a lengthy debate on the best way to move forward following the horrific events of December 14,\’\’ Malloy said Monday in a statement. \”The interim report from the commission represents another step in identifying the policies and laws that will make our children and, indeed, our entire state safer.  The commission’s recommendations on school safety are especially worthy of consideration this session as we negotiate the biennial budget, and I look forward to working with legislative leaders to implement such measures.

“As I said last week, the deliberations of this commission have mirrored the many conversations that are happening in homes around our state right now.\’\’

 “As you know, I have proposed and the General Assembly is considering a set of strong, common sense measures that includes universal background checks, stricter firearm storage requirements, restrictions on the size of magazines, and a total ban on the sale or purchase of many dangerous weapons, including the weapon used in the Sandy Hook massacre.  While I do not advocate a retroactive ban on the possession of firearms that are legally owned under current law, there are residents of our state who support such measures, and their views, along with the views of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, have a place in this conversation.

“I believe we can pass meaningful legislation that achieves common sense gun violence prevention measures and that we can do it in a way that many gun owners will agree with.

“I am hopeful that we can come to an agreement soon.  Our residents, who by all accounts support many of the proposals that we are considering, have waited long enough.\’\’

At the legislature, Miner had concerns about the proposals.

 \”I\’ve spoken with thousands of gun owners who understand that no matter what they want, in this state especially, given what occurred in Newtown, there will be change,\’\’ Miner told Capitol Watch on Monday at the state Capitol. \”In the eyes of some, perhaps non-gun-owners, the significance of whether a gun will shoot 10 rounds or 12 rounds or 15 rounds doesn\’t have much meaning – other than they would rather there were none.\’\’

He added, \”More and more gun owners are beginning to communicate with me about their interest in trying to help reach a resolution and their total disgust with what seems to be the my-way-or-the-highway approach of others on the other side of the issue.\’\’

\”What does 10 rounds mean?\’\’ Miner asked. \”What does it mean?\’\’

He added, \”Depending on how all this is done, I think there are very significant Constitutional issues – both in terms of the state\’s Constitution and the federal Constitution. Depending on which, if any, of these broader concepts that remove more rights than others, I think that legal challenges become more likely.\’\’

Currently, there are about 180,000 permit carriers in the state.

\”No matter how this shakes out, I suspect hundreds of thousands of innocent people will have lost something in this conversation,\’\’ Miner said. \”How much they lose, I don\’t know.\’\’

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.

120 thoughts on “Malloy\’s Advisory Commission Calls For Banning Possession Or Sale Of Any Gun That Can Fire More Than 10 Bullets

  1. bill katz

    It is too watered down. The ban should include pre-existing types of weapons included in the ban with a buy-back provision. Also, magazines greater then 10 rounds should be retroactively banned.

    Even with these more stringent measures, it still wouldn’t be enough. but we must begin at the beginning and more forward. If we cannot, as a society move away from this culture of guns, it will more difficult in the years ahead.

    1. WhatIsHappeningToConnecticut

      How? All this does is punish the people who follow the laws, and make it easier for cowardly criminals to prey on the soon to be unarmed and helpless. I hope you enjoy a severe spike in crime rate as evidence shows to be FACT that gun bans lead to a lot more violence and murder.

      1. Danielle C

        It’s not leaving people unarmed. And if you think you’ll be in a fight where you’ll need guns with large magazines then I suggest you move.

        1. shelia

          Danielle you live in a fanatsy world. Home invasions with multiple people are common here in Ct. Ask Dr Petit if he could of used a 20 shot glock. It takes average of 7 shots for a policeman to hit a suspect just one time. Who the hell are you or MAlloy to tell anyone how many rounds thier family is allowed to protect themseles with.

          1. bill

            Shelia: A double barel 12 gage shotgun will blast anyone or two into,kingdom come. You don’t need a 30 clip to do the job. And if one shotgun isn’t enough for you, then get two.

            But enough with this bull crap about semi autos. I would take a shotgun any day over a semi auto.

          2. Kim

            sheila: in billyboy’s world, personal choice boils down to HIS choice. Your preferences have nothing to do with it. Neither does reality that includes more than one aggressor, more than one bullet being necessary to stop someone hyped up on PCP, etc.

            Simple solutions from simple minds – unfortunately, their simplicity amounts to destroying the freedom that separates this country from others. As long as those like billyboy are free to follow THEIR OWN choices (like shotguns), then the rest of us should follow suit.

            These are the fools who vote the politicians into office. They are what we need to protect ourselves against. 2 shotgun shells won’t be enough when billyboy and hiw SWAT team kick in your door – but that’s exactly what they want.

            You’ll notice that billyboy sticks to his right to own a shotgun even though a shotgun was used to kill a large number of people in CT in the last month. That’s ok, thought, because HE is comfortable with a shotgun. You see, it has nothing to do with safety of children or safety of citizens, it’s about what HE and those like HIM think we should all do.

            It’s the nanny-state reduced to it’s lowest commond denominator (and I mean ‘low’).

            If it were truly about safety of children, he would turn in his shotgun. There’s no doubt what a shotgun would do to a child – more damage than an AR-15. But that’s not what they are really interested in. It’s all about power over others and government force to use that power.

            This is the reason for the 2nd Amendment – to stop people like billboy and his control freaks

      2. KES

        i know this is useless to point out, but no where does it state that ALL GUNS will be banned. i know its a big incovenience to have to reload as you’re shooting up tin cans but there are worse things in life.

        1. chad

          KES, the panel’s recommendation was to ban possession of semi-auto firearms capable of firing more than ten rounds. That’s most firearms.

        2. Kim

          there are worse things in life: like servitude, no freedom, tyrannical dictatorships, etc. Can you say Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin (and coming soon: Obama and Malloy)

    2. Stan

      It would be a lot easier to “eliminate” mentally ill individuals. Don’t you agree Mr. Katz?

      1. WhatIsHappeningToConnecticut

        The magazines don’t mean anything to me. Its the idea that a type of weapon that accounts for less deaths in the United States than the common household hammer is being banned for nothing other than the fact that the politicians have no care to deal with the actual issues like mental health. Are they lazy? Stupid? What? I’d like to know. The facts and statistics don’t up AT ALL.

      2. Kim

        Stan: perhaps someone needs to start a ‘list’, of the mentally ill individuals (I nominate billyboy for the list). Of course, that list would be published and available to everyone via the web and media.

        As billyboy seems to be in charge of determining who can own a gun and what type, and how many bullets they can purchase, all we need to do now is find a volunteer to decide who goes on the ‘ill’ list – someone other than billy, of course, because he’s already spoken for. Can’t have too much power in the hands of one person now can we?

    3. Richard

      The NRA ‘won’ on the word go as the recommendations are pretty much a recycle of the old assault weapons ban while closing some loopholes like gunshows and private sales.

      Reminds me of Malloy and the “No Layoff” SEBAC contract. Or the Teachers Union after tanking the “Race to the Top” funds. The rest was bargaining from a winning position with much play acting. Gollum was a more convincing actor with the “Master, it hurts us” routine.

    4. The REAL PROBLEM

      Lanza got what be planned for. INFAMY. The institutions for mentally insane must be opened back up. NO MORE GUN FREE ZONES which are just KILLING FIELDS for madmen like Lanza to go to and ply their trade. HE INTENTIONALY went to a gun free zone. The GUN CONTROL LOBBY WHICH LOBBIED FOR GUN FREE ZONES HAS BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.

    5. Ant

      Abortion kills millions of kids in this country and you democrats love pro choice . It’s sick to believe your saving lives by taking my guns away but yet allow people to slaughter innocent children in the womb . These laws if passed will make me a felon. Well ask the British in concord New Hampshire what happend when they tried taking the colonials guns SEMPER FI

    6. pro 2nd A

      Wow! you want to trample on my rights, the day will come when someone will trample on yours.

      1. Kim

        that day is coming sooner than the control freaks think. True patriots are frustrated with this government, and for good reason.

        I had to pay CT taxes this year instead of getting a ‘refund’. To make it sweeter, my property taxes went up. Now Malloy is increasing gas/oil taxes. In the meantime, special interests like government employees, other recipients and government buddies continue to get more and more It will NEVER end, people, until we end it

    7. Justin

      Wow Bill Katz, wow. It’s clear your goal is absolute disarmament of the American people. Your view is sickening and an insult to our Country and anyone who has died to protect it.

    8. Mark of CT

      Bill, you are a moron … typical liberal, the 2nd amendment is in place to protect citizens from tyrants like Malloy (and you) who would like nothing better than to take away all guns. Something tells me you are a nothing but a wimpy little liberal afraid of his own shadow. If they pass all these recommendations into law it will be challenged almost immediately and will not stand up in court.

      1. bill Katz

        Mark: And something tells me that you and the other anonymous posters are candy-ass feeble ussey heads afraid of using their own names.

        Talk about cowards.

        1. Kim

          now this is the real billyboy, not the loving, pseudo-caring individual who the press fawned all over while he kissed the hineys of those on the Sandy Hook commission.

          He changed his tune and turned ‘over a new leaf’ to clearn up his act because he knew a loon would be rejected by the commission. But he’s back now that he has been accepted into the commie-club

        2. Kim

          this must be the new, improved billy katz who recently turned over a ‘new leaf’ and said he wouldn’t respond to insults, ettc.

          It should now be clear why I resisted his many offers of an ‘olive branch’ and a ‘peace meeting’. This is an old, travel-worn path that billy likes to tread and it is full of dishonesty and diversion.

  2. Truthseeker

    The line is in the sand time to make a stand for the Constitution. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    Thomas Jefferson

      1. Ant

        He’s got my vote . If this passes my weapons will no longer be in a safe . They will be at the ready incase the gistappo comes

      2. pro 2nd A

        guns blazing is what made this country. maybe you should’ve paid attention in history class!

        1. Johngaltwhereru

          They probably don’t teach that in history class. The textbooks are filled with Liberal revisionist history.

          I recently read the “Fall of The Soviet Union” chapter in a relative’s high school history book. The names Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher or Pope John Paul II were never mentioned.

          KES was probably taught that we issued the Declaration of Independence, and that was that. Voila, America.

        2. Johngaltwhereru

          Clever, but the Fall of the Soviet Union is complete.

          Justify omitting key figures if you wish, but then we should remove Neil Armstrong, JFK and NASA from any text that discusses landing on the Moon.

  3. CTPatriot

    I love how the anti gun liberals have become the owner of defining what is considered common sense…scary indeed!

    1. bill

      Get used to it, pal. We are here to stay. You clowns had 9 years under W Bush. Now, you are welcome to get aquatinted with us for awhile. A long while.

      1. Kim

        us ‘clowns’ fought British tyranny until they left the country – we won your freedom to post this nonsense billboy. It’s not about 9 years under Bush or anythying else. You’ll find yourself on the wrong side of history eventually, to the point that even YOU will recognize it.

        Have you considered the possibility that you are on a ‘list’ of those against freedom and the second amendment? How would you feel if, when it becomes popular, that ‘list’ is made public?

        Before you get your knickers in a twist billboy and run to your local police station in abject fear over some misplaced notion that you are being threatened (we all remember your history here, billyboy), this is simply an example of why ‘lists’ are a violation of the very freedom our forefathers fought so hard to obtain.

  4. Steve

    It is certainly no surprise that the “handpicked” commision came up with not exactly what the Governor perscribed at the utimate outcome of his commision. This suggestion of banning any and all weapons which can fire more than 10 rounds will not only make illegal to own the AR sytle rifle but almost all small caliber semi-automatic hunting rifles and all semi-automatic pistols. The restriction as worded doesn’t address the magazine size but capability.

    No determination at this point of metal issues. Considering the report just released by media on Adam LAnzo and his detailed paln taking years to orchestrate mental health should have beeb the first issue on the table to be addressed.

    I hope the Attorney General of Conneticut has read up on the Heller decesuion released by the SCOTUS which directly states that 2nd ammendemnt protection is afforded to any weapon which is not “dangerous or unusual” in nature or is not one which is commanly owned. Pushing the line on AR sytle weapons, the most common semi-automatic rifle owned and clearly not the most dangerous or unusual weapon in this day an age will certainly bring any legislation violation of the 2nd ammendement.
    Please don’t bring the intent of the forefathers into the second ammendment wording, because the SCOTUS has already ruled that the weapons that are covered under the ammendment are clearly those whicha are common to the period of time were are addressing.
    This expedience is clearly a ruse to strip the weapons before any action can be taken in a court of law.

  5. Obamalover

    I think Mr Katz is right. We should move away from this culture of guns right after we put homosexuals. drug addicts, slutty women, and the mentally ill requiring medication into FEMA camps for reprogramming.

  6. J. Beltish

    I wish Malloy and his fellow Totalitarians would just pass a law that says the Constitution of the United States is invalid in Connecticut. Then they can confiscate all the firearms, ignore search and seizure laws, set minimum and maximum incomes and confiscate everything above the maximum income. In short, turn Connecticut into a Totalitarian Socialist state now, in one fell swoop, instead of slowly with one totalitarian law at a time. JUST TAKE OVER THE STATE AND ENSLAVE ALL THE PEOPLE NOW, AND GET IT OVER WITH!

    1. Kim

      it’s coming J. Beltish. They just don’t have the stones to do it all at once – so they do it a step at a time. Once a piece of freedom is gone, you neverr get it back.

  7. NAZISM

    Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson and the commission states “we strongly believe in the second amendment BUT we want to confiscate thousands of dollars of your personal property you already paid state sales tax on and turn you into a felon overnight.Hopefully we can confiscate your guns at your home in front of your wife and family and drag you away in cuffs. While we are doing this we plan on lessening sentences for juvenile killers so they can get out much earlier and kill again.”

    1. Kim

      never listen to anyone who says they believe in something BUT…… it means they don’t believe in it at all but don’t have the stones to say so. It’s called ‘lying’…..righty, billy?

  8. Connecticut is Dying Too

    This fiasco is yet another reason to move out of this state. I increasingly look forward to leaving this libtardian utopia behind.

    1. pro 2nd A

      leaving the state would be giving in to the liberals, I will stay and FIGHT! This is what we get when we elect communists like Obama and Malloy. stay and fight and vote these loser liberals out of office. they can pass all the laws they want but if we stick to our guns they will lose, they can’t puts us all in jail!

    2. Randy

      Now is not the time to leave. Now is the time to register as a Democrat, and get involved in party politics. By voting in the primaries, we can change the demographics of the Democratic party, and bring them back to the political center.

      1. bill

        Ha. I became a republican in the primaries so I could vote for Romney, who I was convinced would lose.

  9. the truth

    I think leftist hypocrites like Bill Katz should be banned. Im sure Bill has no trouble with innocent babies being beheaded with late term abortions while hes attacking law abiding gun owners.The culture of leftists killing innocent children must be stopped.

  10. Jim

    Doesn’t everyone see through the transparency of this ploy by Dannel Malloy? His hand picked commission will render suggested legislation that is overreaching and beyond what Dannel wants (e.g. gun confiscation and gun banning beyond assault rifles). Then he will swoop in like some kind of white knight and scale it back to just the assault rifle ban and confiscating 10+ round magazines. This action is supposed to make him look like he supports gun rights. Then he’ll pitch his hypocratic senseless legislation to the gun manufacturers to try to get them to stay.

    In the end, Dannel is only angling for a new job in Washington, he’s there AGAIN tomorrow pitching his proposal like it’s already law. Meanwhile, 5,600 jobs will move out of state with the fine gun manufacturers and associated suppliers that helped build this state. Imagine the irony of a state that takes their tax dollars and uses them to crush their business only to ask them to stay. They can’t even legally own what they manufacture! There will be a drop in tax revenue of at least $800 million (based on last year’s numbers). Given the exploding revenues of firearm sales, that number could easily exceed $1 billion in negative revenue effect on Connecticut.

    The truly sad part of this is that the legal gun owners are the only ones being punished, mental health reform will be tabled and none of the legislation will avert any new tragedy from occurring because criminals don’t obey the law. If they did, they’d stop at the basic laws like murder, assault & robbery before they committed any crimes with guns. But they don’t, because they’re criminals and they don’t obey the law.

    1. Mike Robinson

      Jim, Connecticut state tax revenue from the gun industry was about $70 million for 2011. No way this business grows 14 times to a billion tax revenue in a year or two.

      Here are the numbers. In this 2012 report, The NSSF says the total gun industry across all of America paid $2.1 billion in state taxes in 2011. It also says Connecticut has 7,340 gun jobs, and there are 220,132 gun jobs for the USA total. So Connecticut has 3.33% of the jobs. So 3.33% of $2.1 billion puts Connecticut state tax revenue at $70 million for 2011. This is close to my previous estimate of $81 million. If you have other numbers, please provide a link.

      http://www.nssf.org/PDF/2012EconomicImpactReport.pdf

  11. Fiveform

    There are elements of truth on both sides, but the methodology certainly reeks of “decision by committee.” Good answers involve many shades of grey, NOT “either, or.” Get the politics out (if you can) and make any changes to legislation based on what worked and didn’t work in the past. The track records of the state and the Federal government have demonstrated that there are many gun laws on the books that have been either weakly enforced or not enforced at all, particularly as it relates to crimes with firearms. Don’t write more law, especially under duress, without cleaning up what is already on the books. Don’t pretend that to be a solution of any sort.

    As a gun owner, I wouldn’t want to be the “victim” of confiscation and be made a criminal if I didn’t comply, or even be made a lesser citizen of this state, in being coerced into giving them up. Those in the government who feel that you can fix human flaws by controlling their physical possessions are, in effect, excusing the actions of an individual by shifting blame to inanimate objects rather than confronting the more difficult decisions of determining who gets to have a gun. Personal actions can become excused when we attempt to control behavior by controlling things. Next comes the marginalizing of us into “non-individuals” who can’t be responsible for their actions. The “State” then assumes that responsibility for us. True individuals think and act on their own, within the framework of the community, and ultimately assume responsibility for their actions and the outcome of their actions. Clearly, the government hasn’t done well in legislating around our possessions, so punish offenders, not good citizens.

    I have qualified for firearm ownership for over 45 years and have never been involved in a crime of any sort, misused firearms, or allowed others to misuse mine or provided anything less than responsible attitude towards them. Criminalize Criminals, NOT the rest of us!

    1. bill katz

      Fiveform:

      You reason well and for that, I applaud you. But the point that gives me pause is that I believe that a full 60 percent of guns recovered in a crime in CT were purchased here legit in CT. Any number of reasons may have contributed to these stats including thief and private sale.

      I don’t fault the gun owner such as yourself. But because you cannot stop this seepage, then we must fess up and realize that this gun culture of which I have spoken is ominous for the society in which we live.

      No matter how persuasive I could be with my arguments, I will not convince one gun owner – or at least anyone here. We are locked in our positions on this issue.

      If no one had guns, could you consider giving up your protection? Remember, no one else in the land will own a firearm. Would you give up your gun? I hope you would say, yes. And if you have said yes, then this is reason to work toward a gun-free country.

      If you have said no, which you probably will since you also believe that your gun will also protect you besides common criminality,against the tyranny of the government. And that is a no win situation. But remember, since you believe in out Constitution, you should have no need to worry since our Declaration states that it is “We, the People” who rule.

      We have evolved as humans by observation each other and socialization. We learn and we emulate what works for others. Why can’t we learn from other countries who have had mass murders such as has happened in England and Australia? The reduced gun violence and gun-related deaths by banning guns.

      In our own history, it was so hard to eliminate the institution and the dependence on the free labor of slavery. But we did. It seems that banning guns will be equally as hard. But we will. Mark your calenders. It will happen.

      1. Steve (CT)

        Bill, I don’t mean this as an insult but your are a utopianist. You cannot guarantee a gun free environment… ever. The advance of machinery & tools allows individuals to build firearms in the privacy of their homes now. People don’t currently do it because its expensive, but ban all guns & it will become worthwhile for homegrown gun builders to make them for the illegal market. Gangs & the mafia will fund these factories just as they currently support drugs, prostitution & loan sharking.

        You also fail to understand that just because the criminals in your utopian world are disarmed doesn’t make things equal. Does a 110 lb woman have equality against two unarmed 200 lb male assailants? Give her a firearm for self defense & the situation changes drastically.

        How about this utopian view: No more criminals! That’s just about as likely. Even in a crime free society, many will still want firearms to collect & for various sporting purposes.

        1. bilk katz

          Steve; I just finished read an article in the NY Times about women who are killed by their estranged husbands. They can’t escape this joulous rage of gun owning men.

          Rest assured, I really am not a Utopianist. But I am pragmatic enough to undstand that we have a problem with gun violence in this country and it must be addressed.

          I guess you don’t feel that the gun culture has grown so much with weapons so much more lethal now that no one even blinks an eye at it. Steve, it has gone too far. I may have said all guns must go but that was only my emotional reaction to the pig remarks. I don’t have a problem with home protection but not these more lethal weaponry. I have argued and will always argue that other countries have dealt with their gun problems quite successfully. We should too.

          In the mean time, I wouldn’t mind applying modern technology to safe guard private possession. I would like to see a device invented that would recognize the gun owner via thump ID – a device that would activate the gun only with the registered owner.

          I can assure you that no one is going to get all they want. not me and not you. So I am willing to compromise.

          As I waited in line among mostly NRA folks to speak at the LOB, I had friendly conversations with a couple of them. Frankly, I wasn’t surprised. I don’t think that NRA members are off the wall – at least most are not. I frankly was insulted when the state police made everyone go through metal detectors the first time. I knew that’s we’re directing that process to the pro gun folks. It wasn’t needed. You all are very law-abiding folks. That I know. One guy thought after listening to my ideas of neighborly assistance that I was already one like him and was trying to get me out to the shooting range. But he didn’t quite understand that I have little interest in guns. I have other interests. Just not guns. I would yawn if I went out to a shooting range.

          I will go back to my assertion that it is the seepage of legit gun purchases that find their way into the black market. You can’t stop it.

          I know the history of the gun in this country is dear in the hearts and minds of a lot of people. But I believe that we must allow this history to be a quaint memory and not a continuation into the present.

          1. bilk katz

            I forgot to say, I respond with decency when I am given respect. But I can quickly get nasty with any jerks who wish to indulge my other side.it’s that called fire for fire?

          2. Kim

            poor billyboy pretending to be victim again, when it is he who starts with the attacks?

            He only gives respect when you agree with him. Disagree with him consistently and/or persuasively and the real billyboy comes out in full force. These blogs are full of facts to back this up

      2. daffy nition

        Dear Mr. Katz

        Thank you for making your position abundantly clear. You would disarm every legitimate gun owner. My right to arm myself to protect me and mine stems from God, not you who *plays god* on the internet. Nor do my rights come from pols who have an agenda to disarm me. They too, are playing god.

        Not one of the proposed CT laws would have prevented adamlanza from committing his atrocity. Last I checked, 85,000,000 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.

        Your strawmen and red herrings are a lot to digest so early in the morning.

        1. bill

          Oh shud up. Buy a couple of 12 gage shotguns and keep one at each door. No one is talking about disarmament. If I suggested such, me bad. Spank me.

          1. Kim

            that’s a lie billyboy – again. You have spoken of disarmament many times, and your plan to stand on the sidewalk and cheer when doors are being kicked in. You can’t keep up with your multiple personalities be we can

      3. Kim

        here’s the example I referred to above with the ‘but’…
        Never listen to anyone who claims they believe in something BUT …. it means they don’t believe in it at all. It’s called ‘lying’….right billyboy?

        I applaud you….but
        I respect you….but
        I agree with you…..but

        Rational people know them as BUTheads (intentional spelling)

    2. Kim

      well said fiveform. Unfortunately, your patriotism and ethic of personal responsibility will soon make you a criminal on many levels – now THAT’S good government!

  12. Jack

    I see a big legal challenge, all the way to the Supreme Court. The composition of the Court at that time will decide whether or not we in effect throw the US Constitution out the window. Banning certain types of firearms based on capacities is defacto confiscation / defacto annulment of the 2nd Ammendment, which, as Judge Andrew Napolitano so adeptly wrote … “The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us.” http://www.judgenap.com/index.php?post=my-latest-column-guns-and-freedom

    Today may as well be April 19,1775 – Lexington & Concord – the ‘first shot’ ( non-violent, of course ) has been fired with this recommendation. Make no mistake about it, public words in denial said otherwise …. When this fails to stop the next mentally deranged person from committing a horrible act by other means, there will be another round like this.

    In the words of Joseph Hosmer at the Old North Bridge, seeing the rising smoke from Concord ( the British were burning what they’d come for & found ), “Will you let them burn the town down ?” http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/history/concord_fight.html

  13. John Joseph

    “…banning or possession of any gun that can fire more than 10 bullets without reloading.”

    Does this limit magazine capacity to 9 then?

    1. Steve

      No Joe, that means any weapon capable of being loaded to an excess of ten rounds. Most semi-automatic pistols will load more than 10 based upon the magazine available. There is no mention of magazine size in their recommendation. My .22 caliber squirell rifle will be illegal, as will all of my semi-automatic pistols, my lever action deer rifle holds 11, they all will have to go.
      It clearly shows that the people on this committee have no conception of the basics of gun technology. It’s been a set-up since day one.

      1. Randy

        @Steve,

        Oh, they understand all right. That is the point, they want to ban as many as possible. This would ban ANY firearm that takes an external magazine, and as you say, most rifles.

      2. daffy nition

        >>they all will have to go.<<

        Why would you *give up* your legally owned firearms?

        You are falling into the hands of the tyrants who would incapacitate you to defend yourself and provide means to put food on your table.

        Man up Steve!

  14. chad

    Mr. Katz

    Having watched your testimony before the CTGA, I think we all understand your position: the removal of firearms from private ownership. If your goal is the repeal of the 2nd amendment, why do you not just SAY that?

    1. Kim

      there’s billy in full view….diversion, distraction, dishonesty, distemper, disagreeable.

      Anything but the truth

    2. Kim

      Chad,he actually did say so at one time but took so much heat for it that, like a true politician, he backed off in favor of a more ‘tempered’ position. In other words, he lies

  15. sam

    If this is passed, it would basically out law all semi autos including hunting rifles because they could be adapted to except larger than 10 round mags. Whos going to collect all these guns and whos going to pay for them, or do they expect gun owners to turn them in for free?

  16. Mitchell

    Not a reference to mental health treatment facilities, and such great timing with the NY Daily News piece.

    Absolutely sickening this panel and King Malloy can’t even bring mental health into the “discussion” and shame on the Hartford Courant for cheerleading the entire process.

    Disgraceful.

  17. Fake Thomas Jefferson

    Lupica’s article proves it is not the gun that is the problem it is the loony person that has been relased like a demon on the public. I wonder if this will make people realize that many mistakes were made with this person growing up and no one spoke up about it including the mother who was in denial the kids entire life. Reminds me of the movie Halloween. No one wants to believe someone could be so evil.

    1. sam

      “the loony person that has been relased like a demon on the public” Are you talking about our elected officials lol.

    1. Randy

      Don’t forget the 500 or so that protested against it that same day, and the 3,500 more that lobbied against it on Monday.

  18. Dee Gee

    Mr. Katz waited in a lawn chair, through the early morning hours before the legislative office building opened last week so he could be the first in line to give gun grabbing testimony to members of the public safety committee. I would argue he is the real danger and the extremist mentality that we should be worried about.

    1. bill Katz

      Yep and a few minutes after I arrived, the fur trappers began arriving but they had to stand.

      So I am an extremist and dangerous for wanting a gun free country and you want all the good guys armed to their teeth ready to shoot up the bad guys?

      1. daffy nition

        >>So I am an extremist and dangerous for wanting a gun free country and you want all the good guys armed to their teeth ready to shoot up the bad guys?<<

        Yes and yes. Maybe you can get a cheap one-way flight to Australia or the UK.

      2. Kim

        “you want all the good guys armed to their teeth ready to shoot up the bad guys?”

        makes sense to me

  19. bill

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this.

    The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

    United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons” (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.

    To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings in quill pens.

    Liberty is worth the risk of death!

    1. Randy

      Here are just a few examples of citizens in this Nation requiring firearms fitting the description of ‘Assault Weapons’ in the past century. This list is only a small sample.

      • 1920-1921, The West Virginia Coal Wars; Early in the 20th century, large coal companies forced miners to work in atrocious conditions for literally no pay. The workers, compensated only with company tokens, which were accepted only at the company store, where forced to live and shop at the company. The monthly tokens where not enough to cover their monthly rent to the company, placing they and their families in debt to these companies, and unable to simply quit and go to another job. They were by every meaningful measure, slaves to the wealthy corporation, supported by the law. Attempts by the miners to unionize and strike where met with violence by Baldwin-Felts detective agents who were professional strikebreakers hired by the coal companies. In one act of terror, agents drove a heavily armored train through a tent colony at night, opening fire on women, men and children with a machine gun. They would repeat this type of tactic during the Ludlow Massacre in Colorado the next year, with even more disastrous results.

      • 1946, McMinn County War; The McMinn County War, also called the Battle of Athens, was the name given to an outbreak of violence as returning GIs from World War II clashed with entrenched political interests in order to deliver the county from a corrupt system. Incumbent political-machine politician Paul Cantrell ran for sheriff again in 1946 after spending four years in the Tennessee State Senate. His crony, Pat Mansfield, had been sheriff in his absence and had cooperated with Cantrell in corrupting the local government. Among other things, they had implemented a system of fees that paid local officials for the number of people they arrested.
      Returning WWII soldiers, numbering near 3,000 in 1946 (about 10% of the area’s population), were fed up with the current method of justice. Ex-GI Knox Henry ran against Cantrell, and other GIs ran for several other positions in the local government. On Election Day, August 1, 1946, two hundred armed deputies loyal to Cantrell watched the polls, physically beating GIs and a black man attempting to vote. A crowd gathered as deputies moved the ballot box to the local jail. The angry GIs took weapons from the local armory and fired upon the jail for half an hour until ammunition ran low. The deputies in the jail surrendered at about 2 a.m. when the GIs began to lob dynamite, destroying the jail’s porch. In the precincts free of voter fraud, the GI candidates, including Knox Henry, won the election by nearly 60%.

      • 1970, The Kent State Massacre; The Kent State shootings—also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre[2][3][4]—occurred at Kent State University in the U.S. city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

      • 1992, Los Angeles riots; During the 1992 race riots in L.A., police had completely lost control as hoards of young blacks roamed the streets, attacking all non-blacks, and going from neighborhood to neighborhood, burning them to the ground. During this time, Korean shop owners, long the target of racial hatred banded together to protect their shops and homes from the violent mobs. The shop keepers were able to save their neighborhoods while those around them burned to the ground.

      • 2005, Hurricane Katrina; Once again, in the aftermath of Katrina, law enforcement had collapsed entirely, and large gangs where roaming the streets, robbing and pillaging at will. Many citizens were forced to arm themselves in order to defend themselves and their families.

      1. Kim

        thanks Randy. And let’s not forget that during Katrina police CONFISCATED guns from responsible, legal gun owners so they couldn’t defend themselves.

        Anyone for a ‘list’ of gun owners? This is what authorities do with lists and registrations – they use it against citizens

    2. raybbr

      How about the Connecticut State Constitution?

      Section 15 states: ” Every citizen
      has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

      It’s quite clear we are allowed to protect ourselves with arms if necessary.

      You can’t reason with progressives. They are taught to believe that words will disarm a criminal.

      1. daffy nition

        Hey raybbr!

        Good morning! You have to be up early to counter the *oppressive majorities* who want to strip us of our God given rights.

        LOL
        Daffy

  20. H Koenig

    I am a retired Officer with 35 years of service and 22 years in the US Army. I collect guns, and am an avid shooter. I enjoy shooting SPORTS. I have owned guns for over forty years. No one has ever been hurt by any gun I own. I am not a bad person. To say that I can not own my guns that I have had for this long is so wrong. I am not the problem. The problem is keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. I see no problem with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

    1. bilk katz

      I hear what you are saying. I hope you have your guns locked so tight that no one could break open to gain access.

      1. Kim

        right billyboy, according to you you’re the only gun owner who doesn’t have any problems securing his weapons – everyone else is oh, so deficient and lacking in common sense and morals. Praise Bill the great! He is all things to all people

      2. Kim

        billy: “I hope you have your guns locked so tight that no one could break open to gain access.”

        you mean like your two shotguns – one at each door – that you mention above? Are they ‘locked so tight’ that you can’t reach them in time to save your own life? If not, they are easily stolen.

        Are you consistent about anything (besides the obvious?)

  21. Don Pesci

    “The commission’s recommendations on school safety are especially worthy of consideration this session as we negotiate the biennial budget, and I look forward to working with legislative leaders to implement such measures.”

    What does this mean? Is the governor planning to use Newtown as political leverage to increase revenue? Does he feel his commission’s recommendation that weapons banned by the commission might entail an unconstitutional taking and therefore would require new revenues to buy back retroactively prohibited weapons? What?

    Why does no one ask him the obvious questions?

    1. daffy nition

      >>to buy back retroactively prohibited weapons?<<

      How many do *they* expect to comply? Meh.

  22. Randy

    Would the rifle used at Newtown have killed fewer people had it been registered? Of course not.

    Let’s assume that the AR-15 used at Newtown had been banned, who in their right mind honestly believes that that the multiple handguns he had would not have killed just as many children, just as was done at Virginia tech? It wouldn’t, therefore the law makes the children no safer. Time to use actual sense with these laws.

    SB 1076 creates more gun free zones. Can anyone name even one single life that has been saved by gun free zones? No, you cannot, because they have not saved a single life, ever. There are however examples of people who violated those gun free zones, saving lives.

    Laws that make it more difficult for an otherwise honest person to exercise their rights to be armed, and to protect themselves are unjust. Reasonable, common sense gun control demands that gun laws be straight forward, easy to understand, easy to follow, and easy to monitor, and easy to prosecute when criminals act.

    Each year 82,000 criminals are caught lying on their ATF form 4473, in order to buy a gun illegally. This is a Federal crime, yet the Government prosecutes less than 100 annually. This leaves them free to illegally get guns in other ways. Of those 82,000, you can bet that between 700 and 1,000 are from CT. If the Feds will not go after them, then the state should make it a state Felony, and prosecute them here. Let’s also increase enforcement and penalties in other areas. THAT would be common sense regulations.

    Why has not one proposal included this bit of common sense?

    1. daffy nition

      >>Why has not one proposal included this bit of common sense?<<

      B/c, like Mr. Fraidy-Katz, they are afraid of people with guns.

  23. raybbr

    I see the potted plant platoon is out in force today. These are the people that would like to live their lives in the care of the government relying on the government to feed them, give them just what they need to live, never worrying about how to protect themselves, afraid that some creature will come along and pee on them and, finally, they so believe that being a potted plant is so wonderful that we should all live that way.

    I, and my fellow citizens who believe in liberty and freedom, refuse to become a potted plant. We would rather have the freedom to live as WE see fit and how we choose. Even if it means taking chances.

    We want choose our own soil and nourishment not what some bureaucrat decides for us.

    1. daffy nition

      Well said Raybbr.

      Frankly, I think it’s beyond the comprehension of the socialist posting here to understand what freedom means. They only want to decide what is *best* for you and me, based on their elitist POV. I will resist to my dying breath, anyone who tries to control me.

      “Cogito, ergo sum armatus: I think, therefore I am armed.”

  24. Kim

    Per Thomas Sowell in a recent article discussing term limits:

    “Recently, California’s Senator Dianne Feinstein gave a graphic demonstration of what can happen when you have been in office too long.

    During a discussion of Senator Feinstein’s proposed legislation on gun control, Texas’ freshman Senator Ted Cruz quietly and politely asked “the senior Senator from California” whether she would treat the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment the same way her gun control bill was treating the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms.

    Senator Feinstein never addressed that question. Instead, she became testy and told Senator Cruz how long she had been in Congress and how much she knew. Watching her get up on her high horse to put him in his place, recalled the words of Cromwell to Members of Parliament: “You have sat too long for any good that you have been doing lately. … In the name of God, go!””

    By the way, Sowell is in favor of term limits insofar as a person should only be in government for ONE TERM – not a single term in multiple positions. The former might lead to good government. The latter leads to constant campaigning for the next position

  25. Kim

    A politician in California is trying to pass a law that would ban smoking IN YOUR OWN HOME.

    NYC Mayor wants to ban large soft drinks.

    This is how government works – take away your freedoms a little at a time.

    For all you anti-gunners who are smokers and large soft drink drinkers: when they come after you to make you quit smoking in your own home, or on ANY OTHER ISSUE where your personal choices are threatened (and they WILL eventually), you’ll understand when gun owners aren’t there to defend or support you.

    When they come after you for your religious beliefs – you’re on your own.

    When they come after you for alcolhol consumption (again) – don’t come crying to NRA members.

    When they increase their attack on your first amendment rights (ask Woodward about White House pressure on him) – please don’t speak to us about it or expect sympathy.

    What goes around……you know the rest.

Comments are closed.