Hartford Courant - On the RALLY 5/4

 

Although some may say this is a typical biased Hartford Courant article, it has accomplished what we wanted - Public Exposure that there will be a RALLY tomorrow at the Capitol. NOW all we have to do is come in sufficient numbers to demonstrate we care and generate a POSITIVE article on the Rally. If our numbers are miniscule, expect the anti-gunners to have their own rally in the next few weeks attempting to match our numbers. A large turnout on our part will never be matched by their limited numbers.

 

This article also exposes the opposition game plan (if true) for the remainder of the session and provides their basic arguments to be countered. Our comments are in bold.

 

 ******

http://www.ctnow.com/scripts/editorial.dll?fromspage=CG/articles/state.htm&categoryid=&bfromind=557&eeid=4505842&eetype=article&render=y&ck=&ver=2.8

Gun-Rights Advocates Plan Rally

By LISA CHEDEKEL
The Hartford Courant
May 4 2001 12:00AM

In fliers encouraging attendance at a gun-rights rally at the Capitol on Saturday, organizers warn, "Do you want your guns banned? This year the threat is worse than ever!"

In comments intended to counter that message, Democratic lawmakers said Thursday that proposed gun-control legislation would  have no effect on law-abiding gun owners, but is aimed at tightening some loopholes in existing laws. Perhaps they should look at legitimate "fine tuning" by the State Police in the form of the Single Permit System. These same proponents of tightening loop-holes have effecitively killed this bill for two years - not an indication they are for true public safety!

"The NRA wants the sporting community to think we're out to get them. That's not the case," Senate Majority Leader George C. Jepsen, D-Stamford, said. "There's nothing being proposed that would hurt the legitimate sportsman." In the Hartford Courant,  5/3 Town News, there was a picture of Lisa Novicelli, 13, of Meriden shooting a .22 cal at Blue Trail Range with a thumb hole stock. "Novicelli won fourth place in the United States Sub-Junior Shooting Olympics in March in Colorado Springs, Colo." Under this bill, she would be allowed to keep her current firearm, but would not be "allowed" to upgrade. "No effect on law-abiding gunowners"??? Prohibit Olympic shooters?  One example - there are many others.

Legislators' tangling with gun-rights advocates has become a rite of spring in recent years, as the General Assembly has strengthened the state's gun-control laws. But lawmakers say this year's opposition is off base, given that they're not considering any sweeping changes.

"Virtually everything we want to do this year is fine-tuning. There's no new, big stuff," said state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the judiciary committee. Fine tuning would be support of documented successful programs. Will they actively support Rep. San Angelo's call formore funding and activity by the State Police Illegal Firearms Trafficking Task Force. We've heard no comment from them on this. Pehaps ther's no political benefit/ media exposure to be gained.

Jepsen and Lawlor said Thursday they plan to push two key measures in the remaining weeks of the session - one that would expand the state's 8-year-old ban on assault weapons, and another that would strengthen enforcement of a law requiring people who are subject to restraining orders to relinquish their weapons. They acknowledged that the expanded assault ban could face tough opposition in the legislature.

The assault ban would broaden a 1993 prohibition against specific brands of semiautomatic firearms, covering "copycat" weapons that have cropped up since, as well as certain types of armor-piercing or incendiary ammunition. The expanded ban, which also  would require that .50-caliber firearms be registered, didn't make it out of the judiciary committee and likely will be brought up as an amendment on the floor of the legislature.

So-called "copycat" firearms were in existance in '93 when the original ban was passed. In fact, "Hook 'n Bullet", the CCS magazine, ran 1/2 page ads for both Olympic and Eagle Arms AR-15 rifles (legal under the bill) immediately after passage to demonstrate the stupidity of the law and legislative ignorance. Now to include those firearms and others (Benelli shotguns, M1A, carbines, and others they pulled from the '93 bill) is the height of hypocracy and an insult to the public and law enforcement. How many .50 cal. rifles or ammo have been used in crime in the past 50 years? More public eyewash.

Robert T. Crook, a lobbyist for gun owners and director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, one of the rally sponsors, summed up the main message to lawmakers this way: "Enforce the laws we have. Don't keep banging away at us with nonsense."

He charged that the proposed expansion of the ban was political grandstanding, saying that assault weapons have rarely been seized in connection with crimes.

"There's no documentation that the [1993] ban has done anything. To expand on it with no documentation doesn't make sense," Crook said. Both Sen. Jepsen and AG Blumenthal testified at thepublic hearing and neither had ANY documentation demonstrating a current problem. Chief States Attorney Jack Bailey indicated at a Press Conference that in '93 the problem was with gang warfare and that the Gun Trafficking TF is doing the job well. The Comm. of Public Safety said "These guns are not a problem."

Crook said his group has no problem with the proposal to tighten procedures for seizing guns in cases involving restraining orders. Lawlor has said the change was prompted by a murder-suicide on the East Haven town green last summer, in which the elderly  homicide victim had obtained a restraining order against her husband, but he had never been forced to surrender his weapons. The problem with the original restraining/protective order bill and the E. Haven incident was that there was no/little knowledge by enforcement/courts of the "new" law and no coordination among agencies. Another example of too many laws, lack of knowledge, and no enforcement. CCS opposed the original 2001 Judiciary proposal which would have forced law enforcement to immediately confiscate all firearms when an order was issued - not a responsible use of police assets, and over-reaction to a rare problem. The bill was changed continuing the 48 hour transfer of firearms and better coordination measures placed in the bill.

Jepsen and Lawlor said there was ample evidence that both the 1993 ban and a 1999 law that gave police new powers to seize firearms from the homes of dangerous or mentally unstable people had helped to prevent violent crimes. They cited police statistics showing that at least 39 "copycat" military-style assault weapons had been found in seizures in the past 18 months. In one case, in Meriden, police seized more than 40 guns, some of them assault weapons, from a man whose wife complained that he was dangerous. Specious Argument. What kind of seizure? Seizing a personal collection has no relevance to crime. What number of "copycats" HAVE directly been used in crime? What is the AW percentage of guns used in crime v. other type guns? The bottom line: Cosmetic characteristic have no relevance to crime.

"I have no doubt that lives have been saved because of this," Jepsen said of the seizure law - dubbed by opponents as the "turn in your neighbor" bill. This law has its own problems. Its repeal was almost accomplished in last year's special session. Had a vote been taken, it is doubtful it would be on the books today.

The 1 p.m. rally at the Capitol is being co-sponsored by the National Rifle Association and a local pro-gun group called GunSAFE. Participants are cautioned in fliers that "bringing a firearm will not help our cause."

Crook said he couldn't guess how many people might attend. An August 1999 "Second Amendment Rally" at the Capitol drew more than 125 people. 

"The word is out. How responsive people are going to be is up in the air," he said.