Saying they made progress in closed-door talks on gun control, the legislature’s top leaders said they will meet again Thursday in the hopes of reaching a bipartisan deal.
Both Republicans and Democrats met at the state Capitol as they tried to reach consensus on reforms following the shootings of 20 children and 7 adults in the Danbury suburb of Newtown on December 14.
The lawmakers emerged from the meeting shortly before 7 p.m. Wednesday to declare that they made progress.
“Speaking for myself, this was productive,” said Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, the highest-ranking senator. “I don’t think we’re going to talk a lot about specifics, but I was heartened that we were able to make certainly enough progress to come back and meet tomorrow. … We’re going to take it one day at a time and keep talking. The message, as far as I’m concerned, is we’re seeing some areas of agreement, and that’s a positive thing.”
Lawmakers declined to provide any details about any possible agreements on ordering universal background checks, banning military-style assault weapons and limiting large-capacity magazines.
House Speaker J. Brendan Sharkey agreed with Williams, saying, ”It was a good meeting – and productive. I remain optimistic that, by having continued conversations, I’m hoping that we’ll reach a conclusion at the appropriate time. We have to keep working at it, but it was productive.”
Standing nearby, House Republican leader Larry Cafero said, “It was a productive meeting. … We’re all there in good faith, and we’re all working toward the same goal, which is to have a bipartisan, comprehensive, effective agreement.”
Cafero added, “I think everything’s on the table.”
Many reporters waited for long periods in a stakeout outside Williams’s corner office at the Capitol, and the lawmakers spoke for less than five minutes before leaving to vote in both the House and Senate.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
5 Responses to Top Leaders Declare Progress On Gun Control Compromise; Meeting Again Thursday
About Capitol Watch
The Hartford Courant’s Capitol Watch blog provides insightful and in-depth coverage of Connecticut politics... read more- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
NEW! CT Politics App.
Courant.com brings you the latest CT political news, blogs, tweets and photos, powered by the Hartford Courant and FOX CT.
Download it now:
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
Legislators who vote for bans on rifles and capacities will mean a lot of new faces in Hartford in 2014. Can’t wait to see the faces of those who vote agianst the Constitution. The voters of CT will remember who voted for freedom.
Where are the specifics? Does an “Assault Weapons Ban” mean a ban on “Bad Scary Looking Guns”? Where is the reason and logic and benefit to the People of CT? Where is the proof that such a bill would protect the People of CT? A 10-year study of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban proves without a doubt that it made no difference in violent crime, same for the magazine capacity ban, proven ineffectual. So besides grandstanding, what will these bills do to protect the children of CT? Where is the responsibility of the Hartford Courant to find the facts? “Lawmakers declined to provide any details…” Journalistic integrity at its finest. Shame on the Courant for allowing this dodge. Why do we read about these vital issues but to find out the specifics, the details. This is another “We won’t know what’s in the bill until we pass the bill” and we saw how well that went. The Second Amendment must be upheld as it is a vital part of our Constitution. These bills only provide punishment for the innocent and law-abiding, not for criminals. When will our Lawmakers understand that criminals do not follow the law, that’s why they are criminals! Only the law-abiding abide by the law, and they are not a threat. Vote “NO” to ineffectual laws.
I am an innocent law-abiding citizen who does not want my fellow innocent law-abiding citizens to be able to purchase rapid-firing, high-capacity death machines. My fellow citizens can enjoy their Second Amendment right for hunting and personal protection without them.
That is why the founders set the constitution up the way they did so that you could not change my rights. You can choose not to exercise your constitutional rights but you can not tell me I can’t.
Mary, the problem is there is no functional difference between the AR-15 and a standard semi-auto hunting rifle like the Remington 750. A $5 plastic grip is what the majority is claiming to be a dangerous military feature and so any rifle with a grip should be banned. The irony is that by definition every rifle and shotgun on the planet has a “pistol grip” – that’s simply where you hold it. Many target rifles (Olympics), turkey shotguns, and hunting rifles have pistol grips or thumbhole stocks, but the proposed legislation would ban all semi-auto rifles with a “pistol grip” or “thumbhole stock”.
So if you are in favor of your fellow citizens enjoying the 2nd Amendment for hunting and personal protection, then you should oppose the legislation to ban the AR-15. It’s not a magic gun, it’s a 50 year old design, fires a less powerful cartridge than the typical hunting rifle, and is painted black. This in many ways is why so many have been so opposed to the proposed legislation. It’s actually silly because they are looking to either ban something already banned or they are trying to take away all rifles and shotguns. Also note that the media and pollsters are being dishonest with their presentation of the issue. If a poll came through and asked “Are you in favor of banning machine guns” I think just about everyone would say “Yes”. If you were asked “Are you in favor of banning semi-automatic hunting rifles” I think most would say “No”. But when they ask “Are you in favor of banning Assault Weapons” then you are being dishonest at best because Assault Weapons were banned long ago. They are “machine guns” and the only similarity between the Connecticut legal semi-auto “Bushmaster” rifle and the military “Assault Weapon” is the basic shape and color.