Can Connecticut Enact Rational Gun Control Legislation?

Patch columnist Lisa Bigelow says the Newtown tragedy demands a thoughtful, rational, practical and actionable response from our state government.

With the holiday season behind us and 2013 officially here, the powers in Hartford are busy preparing for another jam-packed legislative agenda. Certainly, Connecticut is facing a wide variety of economic, fiscal and social challenges. And while national politics often capture the lion’s share of our collective attention, let’s not forget that what happens legislatively closer to home probably has a greater effect on our daily lives. 

I recently had the opportunity to meet state Rep. Gail Lavielle (R-143) over sushi and seaweed in Westport. I came away impressed with her calm demeanor, easy intelligence and rational thinking. One of my New Year’s resolutions—to write more about local politics—came to early fruition as she agreed to speak with me again about her plans for the upcoming legislative session.

Before Newtown, our interview and the 2013 inaugural "Patch Back" column was to have been about the Connecticut state budget. Indeed, there will be many future columns dedicated to how our tax dollars are being spent.

But for now, gun control legislation chatter is at a fever pitch—and rightfully so. Our citizens demand action. And our elected officials have an important opportunity to demonstrate bipartisan thinking with more than feels-good, accomplishes-nothing legislation.

Ms. Lavielle, for one, is paying close attention.

“I am listening at this point,” Ms. Lavielle told me after remarking that Connecticut’s current assault weapons ban is ambiguous. While acknowledging she is still learning about the finer points of weapons technology, she is firm in her belief that new any new legislation language must be clearly defined as well as enforceable.

“Grandfathering sounds wonderful,” she said. “But is it enforceable? Probably not."

“I am willing to participate in a very informed and level headed debate — we need this debate,” she continued. “It seems in current usage ‘semi-automatic’ can mean just about anything."

“We are elected to think about things clearly and bring clear heads,” she added, “and I intend to spend the next four to six weeks learning the facts and learning my constituents’ opinions.”

These comments, for this columnist, were so refreshing to hear. The Newtown disaster demands a thoughtful, rational, practical and actionable response from our state government. As Ms. Lavielle observes, we must listen first, gather data next and only then draw conclusions from these data. Finally, our legislators must act to produce a meaningful law that will ensure Newtown never, ever happens again.

Addressing the problem with enhanced weapons measures will only attack part of the problem, however. I am hopeful that Governor Malloy’s newly-formed Sandy Hook commission will also consider the practicality of implementing and enforcing mandatory mental health background checks prior to purchase as well as private gun sale regulation. The gun show loophole should be closed, too.

Although I am looking forward to the commission's legislative recommendations in addition to the public comment on the proposed legislation, I am not looking forward to political grandstanding, emotionally charged and mostly anonymous online debate, and absurd special interest lobbying.

Let common sense and calm reign in Hartford and in our populace. Let the Sandy Hook commission and our lawmakers craft clear, thorough and enforceable legislation that will do more than ban high-capacity ammunition magazines and increase security at our schools. Let them remember that the vast majority of Connecticut gun owners are law-abiding citizens who have the right to own weapons without fear of having their names published, as one legislator foolishly suggested.

Finally, let us remember the term “assault weapon” is redundant. All guns kill. In this writer’s opinion, it’s the access to the weapon that must be better controlled.

Do you want to participate in Connecticut’s gun control legislative process? Share your views with Representative Lavielle at (860) 240-8700 or Gail.Lavielle@HouseGOP.CT.gov.

john January 09, 2013 at 12:48 PM
Once again the focus is on the wrong issue. The real issue is not the tool, but rather the Person using it. Had this animal ran into the school with a chainsaw the damage would have been catastrophic. Would we be talking about chainsaw restrictions, i think not and rightfully so. HE DID NOT OWN THE FIREARMS, so having a more restrictive law wasnt stopping him. I wonder why there is no talk of the real issue....LACK OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND RESOURCES. The way to prevent the next tragefy is not found with laws but rather a proactive approach to those who need help, and a system where someone (like his mother )i could have turned to get
Yooper January 09, 2013 at 07:53 PM
john gives us a perfect example of NOT having a reasonable discussion. Talking about chainsaws (or hammers or machetes) is merely a diversion from the subject of high capacity, rapid fire, lethal firearms. We have a problem with mass killings with guns, not chainsaws. We accomplish nothing with semantic debates about "assault" "semi-automatic" or other terminology. We need to decide if there is any valid reason for anyone other than our military or law enforcement to possess the kind of weapon used in Newtown. Yes, mental health services and resources need to be addressed, but the simple fact is that we do not have continuing cases of mentally disturbed people choosing anything but firearms when they go on their killing sprees.
Yooper January 09, 2013 at 08:27 PM
From time to time I tune in to WTIC-AM to listen to John Rowland's political spin on the issues of the day. I have never been a supporter of our ex-con Governor, but this week I actually had some sympathy for him. John was fielding calls from loyal listeners bemoaning "gun grabbers" and invoking Nazi Germany as John tried to discuss gun control. John very calmly and patiently tried to dissuade callers from extreme views, but was met with one claiming a right to surface to air missiles for personal protection from a tyrannical government. Over and over a frustrated Rowland pleaded for rational discussion to little effect. I think this is a natural result of WTIC's lineup of right-wing talkers who day in and day out rail against "liberals" and Obama and anything that does not conform to their extremist views. They cultivate an audience to reflexively oppose anything other than right-wing orthodoxy.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »