Gov. Malloy Will Sign Bipartisan Gun Bill

[Blue_Tires]

Gov. Malloy said Tuesday he intends to sign the bipartisan gun bill legislative leaders negotiated in response to the Newtown massacre.

"I think it demonstrates once again that we can do things on a bipartisan basis in Connecticut that simply can't be gotten done in Washington or other state capitols. This is an historic movement on our part," said Malloy.

Both chambers of the state legislature will hold votes on the measure Wednesday, and easy passage is expected.

The gun package strengthens the state's assault weapons ban, bans the sale and purchase of large capacity magazines, and requires universal background checks on sales of firearm and ammunition. It also increases gun trafficking penalties and creates the first statewide 'dangerous weapon offender registry.' It also includes mental health and school security provisions.

"I think you can make an argument, a strong argument, that this is the toughest law passed anywhere in the country," said Malloy.

Malloy announced his support for the bill the day following a visit from Newtown families, who urged lawmakers to ban not only the sale and purchase but also the possession of magazines above 10 rounds. Under the new law, existing magazines would be 'grandfathered in' if owners registered them by Jan. 1, 2014. The ban on sale would be effective immediately.

"I advocated for a similar position as the families and continue to advocate for that position but we don't want to stop progress," said Malloy.

If enacted, this law would make Connecticut the third state to tighten gun regulations following the Sandy Hook shooting.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-gun-bill-tough-0403-20130402,0,693207.story

A certain regular in this forum (who will remain unnamed) implied I was too lazy to post and discuss this in the RBKA group...No flames, snark or whatever; I just want to know two things:

1. Do you think this legislation will reduce the chances of another massacre, increase them, or have no effect at all?

2. If you had the power, what legislation would you propose to reduce the chances of another massacre?

[ZOB]

1. Question #1 - No change

Question #2 - Changing the way in which the media reports these shootings to eliminate the notoriety the shooter receives might help...but that would require voluntary compliance from the media. Dealing with mass shootings as a mental health issue rather than a gun issue would also help, but there are many pitfalls including stigmatizing mental illness and the mentally ill.

We might be able to reduce these shootings somewhat, but they will always happen. I am convinced, however, that banning certain cosmetic features and limiting magazine size will have no effect.

[Blue_Tires]

2. Well, as a former reporter, I must say there will *always* be notoriety

Since after the WHO and HOW get answered, the WHY can get very, very convoluted...Going back to Charles Manson, Jack the Ripper, Lizzie Borden and earlier...There's a reason why everyone knows those names even to today...

[ZOB]

3. Agreed

It's my fear that the desire some have for that notoriety will ALWAYS result in the commission of horrible acts, and this is WHY things like gun laws will not end mass shootings. It's really not a gun issue.

[av8r1998]

4. It's NOT Bipartisan

By a long shot, and it is very seriously flawed.
Nearly as flawed as the SAFE act.
It contains unenforceable provisions (Like magazine cannot extend below the pistol grip... most statutes read "Conspicuously below the pistol grip or action" ... without clarification it bans nearly every modern Semi-Automatic pistol in common use)

I think that is what they MEANT, but not what it says.

1. Do you think this legislation will reduce the chances of another massacre, increase them, or have no effect at all?
Not at all.... not even close

2. If you had the power, what legislation would you propose to reduce the chances of another massacre?
Statistically speaking the chances are infinitessimal. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, but try working on the software, not the hardware.
This kid should've been in treatment.

[Blue_Tires]

5. Thanks for your input

Yeah, the kid *should* have been in treatment, but there's no real way to make him go (especially if elements in his home life help enable his psychoses), and its quite difficult to legally commit somebody, iirc...

And for the record, the bill *is* bipartisan, since the senate GOP helped draft it, and the minority GOP leader is on record as supporting it...Although whether or not the GOP supports it is moot, since Dems control both houses

As an aside, the Virginia Tech shooter was already getting mental health counseling from on-campus facilities, but I don't know how useful those sessions were (fwiw, he never should have been enrolled anyway -- there was a long string of disturbing disciplinary behavior that in a sane world gets students expelled)

[av8r1998]

6. You're Welcome

*Although whether or not the GOP supports it is moot, since Dems control both houses *
This is what I meant.
Some repubs are anti-gun.

When I say NOT BiPartisan I mean E-Cert.
Republicans were told to "Go Along"

My point was about that first gaping hole that will make the law unworkable.
Hearings on an actual bill would have vetted that out. But the law would not make it out of comittee.
Why? Because the makeup of pub. safety and judiciary (where most gun bills are sent), though Democratic, contain enough pro gun democrats to kill them.

Leadership decided to E-Cert, so there won't be any hearings.
So the law will pass, but it is a bad law.
So it will be unenforceable.
Hello CT's version of SAFE.

Hell - one of the biggest military suppliers in the country, Sikorsky Aircraft is in my district.
They will be limited as to the firearms their security service can carry.

This is a "Good Law"?

[Lurks Often]

14. We wouldn't know for sure until the final police report is released,

but there are rumors from people that were acquainted with Nancy Lanza that she was desperate to get her son help and that the State of CT did nothing to help her. The other part of the rumor is that the final straw that set her son off was that he found out that she was planning on sending him off to somewhere in Washington state where he would be confined and treated.

[2ndAmForComputers]

16. "It's NOT Bipartisan!!11!1111!!!!"

Yeah, poor oppressed GOP, railroaded by the big bad mean Democrat Party.

[Blue_Tires]

26. I get your general sentiment

But I beg of you -- Lets try to keep this thread on track and free of snark, sniping, or "NRA CULTIST/GUN GRABBER" -namecalling for as long as possible...

[krispos42]

7. WTNH had a summary of the laws

It's a convoluted mess.


Take a peek:

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]Documents summarizing new gun bill

Updated: Tuesday, 02 Apr 2013, 9:37 AM EDT
Published : Monday, 01 Apr 2013, 7:05 PM EDT

<snip>

3. The bill significantly expands the Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban.

Currently, Connecticut is one of only a handful of states with a state-level assault weapons ban. Under current law, an “assault weapon” is defined as one of 66 different specified firearms, or any other semiautomatic weapon that contains “two or more” of a list of physical characteristics.

Under the current bill, a) an additional list of more than 100 new specified weapons will be designated as banned assault weapons, in addition to all of the other weapons captured by the “physical characteristics” test. Also, that characteristics test is being amended to add some new banned military-style features, and also to require an assault weapon to have ­only one of the listed features in order to fall under the ban.

<snip>

4. The bill immediately bans the sale or purchase of large capacity magazines, and imposes extremely stringent restrictions on the use of those currently possessed.

Only 7 states and the District of Columbia have any limits on the legal size or use of ammunition magazines. The definition of those regulated large capacity magazines (“LCMs”), with regard to the threshold capacity, varies. New York recently went down to 7 rounds, but apparently is going to go back up to 10. Maryland is at 20 rounds, and may go down to 10 via a Senate bill currently pending in the House. New Jersey and Colorado are at 15 rounds. California and Hawaii are at 10, but the Hawaii law only applies to handguns.

Under the bill, Connecticut will now join these states. An LCM will be defined as one that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Immediate ban on sale, purchase or importation of LCMs: effective on passage, it will be a class D felony to sell, buy, transfer or import an LCM into the state (other than to turn it in or trade it in to law enforcement or a licensed gun dealer). Going forward, possession of any LCM not possessed as of the effective date will be a class D felony.

LCMs that are currently possessed must be registered with DESPP by January 1, 2014 to remain legal, and even when registered will be subject to extremely strict usage limitations:

· Possession of such magazines must be declared to DESPP by January 1, 2014. After January 1, 2014, any LCM that has not been the subject of such a declaration

cannot be legally possessed under any circumstances (even if it had been possessed before the effective date).

· Even with regard to such legally declared LCMs, upon passage the bill will immediately impose the following stringent limitations on their use:

o Except for in an individual’s home or on the premises of a shooting range, an LCM can never be loaded with more than 10 bullets.

o Even if an individual has a permit to carry a pistol or revolver, they can never carry, other than at a shooting range, a pistol that has an LCM loaded with more than 10 bullets.

o If an individual with a carry permit has a pistol that they purchased prior to the effective date that accepts an LCM, they can carry the LCM in that pistol, but only loaded with 10 bullets. Moreover, under no circumstances can the LCM in such pistol extend below the pistol grip.

o If an individual has a pistol purchased after the effective date, an LCM can never be carried with that pistol other than at a shooting range. Instead, the individual must use only a magazine that takes 10 or fewer bullets in any pistol purchased from the effective date forward .

<more>

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/connecticut/bipartisan-agreement-on-a-state-gun-control-bill-made


Typical. Make the law difficult to follow so you can have a rich assortment of minor and meaningless violations to prosecute. The prison-industrial complex is loving this.


Another reason to hate this stupid state.

[Blue_Tires]

8. I have no doubt it's more "feel-like-we-doing-something-useful" type of legislation...

I just wanted more opinions on what *will* work, and how to get it enacted...

[krispos42]

15. There isn't anything that will prevent another massacre

You simply need a crowd of people someplace and some kind of repeating gun.

The revolver is 150 years old, and tens of millions of people gather in specific places at specific times on a very routine basis: church, mass transport, sporting events, retail sales, restaurants at meal times, etc.

Bombs work quite well in this type of scenario, if you can make one without blowing yourself up. So does arson: chain the doors shut and light the building on fire. Or block the doors with a parked and disabled vehicle.


Or you can simply kill your family while they sleep; icepick or sharpened screwdriver through the brain. Silent and immediate.




Mass murders (5+ victims) are very rare:




In 2005 your odds of being in a mass murder incident are 1 in 33 million; there were only 8 people killed in mass murders that year, which means that there was only one mass murder that year.
The highest point on the graph is 1995 where the odds are 1 in 9.1 million; 29 people killed in mass murders that year, which means that there were 5 or fewer mass murders that year.



The number of people that commit mass murder per year is in single digits, so trying to isolate those people from weaponry is not effective. I mean, what's stopping them from running over a bunch of schoolkids in a crosswalk with a snowplow-equipped pickup truck? You wait for the crossing guard to come out and the kids to start trooping across the crosswalk, then simply hit the gas. With the plow about 8" off the ground, the kids will be wedged between the plow and the pavement as you scrape them over the road at high speed until then eventually become hamburger.



That's rather dark and gruesome, but it's also true.

[jmg257]

17. Does that truck/plow thing happen alot?

I just don't hear about it as often as I hear about people with guns mowing other people down.

Almost 9000 times in 2012....and that is just gun-related murders.


Curious...

[krispos42]

18. Nope!

But there is no regulatory framework that would prevent maniacs from acquiring snowplows and the trucks to push them, either.

The murder of an entire family by a father or mother is far more common.

The question was preventing massacres.

[jmg257]

19. I think you replied to your new comment with your answer: Nope-it just doesn't happen all that much.

Which would explain the lack of regulations, or any push for them.

Unlawful shootings, including firearm massacres and family wipeouts, however...

[krispos42]

21. ...also don't happen all that much.

The corporate media likes to flog them like a rented mule, of course, but you can see from the chart that I posted that the trend line for 4-victim and 5+ victim murders is on the decline, or at least until 2005, when the data ended.


And when the solution is to ban protruding pistol grips, I think that's a pretty effective answer that "nothing can be done to stop mass slaughters from occurring".

[jmg257]

22. Of course its not "the" solution, just one of many possible actions to take. I agree,

one that doesn't go nearly far enough.

Plenty can be done to stop mass slaughter, and especially slaughter with guns.

Stay positive - it'll happen!

[Blue_Tires]

23. Yeah, "prevent" was too strong a word...

I should say "reduce the chances of", but then that's a whole other philosophical debate over whether laws should be proactive or reactive...Besides, the graph you posted is showing a general downward trend per millions of people (at least until 2006) so the chances are already remote...

I take it that you're of the opinion that it's just impossible to protect ALL of the people, ALL of the time?

[krispos42]

28. Of course I am of that opinion.

Or rather, that truth. People died every day, and a large chunk of them don't die peacefully in their beds. About every 40 minutes somebody is murdered in this country.


And even "reducing the chances"... at the level that mass shootings occur, particularly the angry suicidal spree kind, they are already so low that even doing nothing results in a large year to year variation. Like fatal shark attacks.


To get a trend line line that goes lower, we'd need to get major victories on our non-assault-weapon social agenda... bring back unions. Cheap or free secondary education. Universal single payer health care, both physical and mental. Break up the monopolies so that the newly freed workers have room to do what they live for themselves, rather than what they hate simply because they need health coverage. End the war on drugs so we can reduce the prison culture and criminal networking system that prisons have become. Get and keep our air and water and food clean to reduce illness both mental and physical.


Do all this, make the family units stronger and more prosperous and better educated, and maybe you'd see a lower long term mass murder rate, along with a while lot of other rates.

[Blue_Tires]

29. Great insights...

I now how a completely different way of looking at the issue that I wouldn't have considered before...

The funny thing is I've already long been a proponent of increasing education, economic opportunity and quality-of-life issues as the best way to improve blighted, crime-ridden neighborhoods (since the war on drugs and racial profiling go hand-in-hand)-- Not once had I ever thought of a 'wider' scale of application...

It definitely makes sense, but sadly I can't see this idea taking flight anytime soon...I've been saying for years that American politicians/media/voters have fallen too much in love with simple, unilateral solutions to very complex, nuanced issues...We've seen it when it comes to the environment, immigration, healthcare, corporate responsibility, etc. etc...

If I ever get my Senate bid into first gear, I'll try my damnedest to make this happen

[krispos42]

30. To me, the alternative to my point...

..is that it's okay if people are struggling through life on several levels, just as long as they are non violent.


I find it difficult to conceive of a secular society that is well educated, well employed with quality jobs, and free from worrying about financial problems due to illness or greedy banks, where violence will climb significantly over time.

we had this to an extent after the Second world war, but that way I think due in significant part to lead in the air from burning leaded gasoline.

[Lurks Often]

9. Won't do a thing to prevent future massacres

And we still haven't seen an actual bill, just some statements from the Democratic & Republican leadership. According to an e-mail I received from a member of the CT Legislature at 2:15 this afternoon, she hasn't seen the actual bill either.

Still haven't seen the complete police report either.

Whatever the bill reads, they are going to push it through without allowing any public hearings on what it actually contains.

[Blue_Tires]

11. Which brings me back to my original question...

What WOULD help prevent future massacres, while being perfectly legal and not infringing on personal freedoms??

I was hoping to have a more thorough discussion on this from people in the know, and so far all I have is "better mental health screening" with no further ideas on who to screen, who should do the screening, how to screen, what to screen for, and which mental disorders should bar someone from firearm ownership...What also should be considered is just how complex and layered the modern DSM is, and how easy it is for a motivated mental health professional to diagnose an average person with SOMETHING (nevermind the fact that I can be a nearly normal and high-functioning with a certain disorder, while the next guy can't, even with the same disorder)...So how should that net be cast? Too wide and you're infringing rights, too narrow means more potentially criminally insane cases slip through the cracks...

[Lurks Often]

13. Better school security is a big first step

Panic alarms, bulletproof entryways and an armed school resource officer. Keep in mind Newtown PD has two of them already: http://www.newtown-ct.gov/public_documents/newtownct_police/Roster%20Folder/roster2

The unfortunate truth is that the murdering little monster came up with a new way to be a famous mass murderer: target small children. At some point someone WILL try to copy what he did. Only next time they use a 5 shot pump shotgun or a 10 shot handgun with lots of spare magazines and the fatalities are as high or higher then Sandy Hook, firearms that will never be made illegal.

Look at airline hijackings, prior to 9/11, if you were on a airplane that was hijacked, you stayed put, kept quiet and hoped you weren't the nationality the hijacker was looking for. Airline passengers understood that sooner or later either they would be released or the nice gentlemen from Delta, GSG-9 or the SAS would come along and resolve the problem.

Now airline passengers are going to jump, restrain and probably beat the hell out of anybody who tries to hijack an airplane.

I've been a competitive shooter for more then 20 years and while I find the concept obscene, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT in my mind I could have walked in that school with a 5 shot pump shotgun used by hunters and trap and skeet shooters across the country and killed far more people that mentally ill monster did.

And I know a couple of hundred shooters that could do as much or more then I could in 5 minutes.

[Blue_Tires]

24. Better school security sounds good in theory

But it's easy to go overboard, and the day our schools start to resemble Ben Gurion Airport is the day I find a new country to live in...

Besides, as krispos noted, even if the schools were airtight, a motivated killer can just find any number of places with lots of people and little to no security...

[sylvi]

10. Well I'm happy to see you moved out of "NRA Talking Points!™" mode.

There is something to be said for incrementalism after all.

[Blue_Tires]

12. "incrementalism?"

You mean after all this time you've never known my personal stance on the issue? I'll clue you in -- Responsible gun owners have never been my enemy, but the NRA as a political entity is (I have my own personal reasons for that)...

Having said that, I'm interested to know your thoughts on the two questions I put in the OP...

[beevul]

20. Question 1...

Question 1 - No effect.

Question 2 - Security. The way to prevent at least some of these massacre type events, is to prevent the individual intent upon perpetrating it, from reaching a destination which is ideally suited to that purpose.

It need not be overly intrusive, It need only be effective.

My view is that if a public or privately owned venue is going to be deemed "gun free", it becomes the responsibility of those deeming it so, to take prudent and appropriate measures to ensure that it actually is.

Anything less is the honor system which fails far too often, as we have several examples of.

[Blue_Tires]

25. Excellent points

I was going over in my mind places I've been to recently that take diligent responsibility in remaining 'gun-free'...

1. Airports (obvious)
2. Courthouse (obvious)
3. Nightclubs (stuff might happen outside the club or in the parking lot, but the inside is usually quite safe)

[oneshooter]

27. "inside is usually quite safe", unless somebody torches the place.

[Eleanors38]

31. My answers:

1) No

2) Increased and creative armed security might reduce mass muder. You may be interested in Barbara Boxer's approach: Call out the National Guard to patrol all schools. Were you aware of this proposal?

Mass murder has entered into the realm of entertainment and a longing for purpose (so the killers think) in a society which has splintered both notions. Curiously, mass killers want something which is rapidly collapsing with the old mass models of legitimacy.

Frankly, if I were in a shopping mall, I would feel safer if a sign said "Armed personnel and civilians may be present." I am NOT reassured by the fiction of "Gun-free Zone."

[Blue_Tires]

32. I don't know Boxer's logic behind her thinking...

There's never going to be enough national guardsmen to cover each school, and I have no idea how they could even deploy the ones they have now without causing a logistical nightmare...

[Eleanors38]

33. I agree. Seems like NRATalkingPoint (tm) on steroids.