Connecticut Reaction to Obama Gun Control Proposals

The president unveiled a sweeping number of proposals Wednesday designed to curb gun violence. What's your take?

President Obama on Wednesday unveiled what is being called the most ambitious gun control agenda in decades, initiating 23 separate executive actions aimed at curbing what he called “the epidemic of gun violence in this country,” according to The Washington Post.

According to the White House fact sheet, Obama’s plan includes:

  • reinstating and strengthening the assault weapons ban,
  • restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines,
  • getting rid of armor-piercing bullets,
  • ending a freeze on research into gun violence,
  • providing additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime
  • calling on Congress to pass a $4 billion proposal to help communities keep 15,000 police officers on the streets, as well as new gun trafficking legislation that would “impose serious penalties on those who help get guns into the hands of criminals".
  • Making schools safer by giving communities the opportunity to hire up to 1,000 school resource officers and school counselors.

Connecticut political reaction came quickly:

Governor Dannel P. Malloy released the following statement:

“In the hours after the worst of our fears were confirmed, in the midst of the grief and sorrow over the loss of 20 innocent children and six dedicated educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there was one question on the minds of people across Connecticut and around the nation: How do we make sure this never happens again? 

“Today the President took the critical first step toward answering that question.  The common sense measures he proposed today are something that we should all be able to agree on, and I want to commend him and the Vice President for their work on this issue.

“I have no doubt that, state by state, we will deal with the issue of gun violence.  Over the coming months, I will do everything in my power to make sure that Connecticut is a national leader in preventing gun violence.  We will take steps to make sure that our gun laws are as tight as they are reasonable, that our mental health system is accessible to those that need it, and that our law enforcement personnel have all the tools they need to protect public safety, particularly in our schools.

“But we can’t go it alone.  We need leadership at the federal level, and for the first time in a long time, we have it. 

“We will not be able to stop gun violence completely, but we can make our country and our children safer.  We owe it to them, and to all those lost in Sandy Hook, Aurora and every other city that has lost someone to gun violence, to try.”

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) released the following statement:

These are strong recommendations, and Congress should act on them now—before another mass tragedy occurs. If assault weapons and high capacity magazines were not so readily available, I am convinced there would be more little boys and girls alive in Newtown today. If background checks were universal, our city streets would be safer. There are no longer any excuses for inaction. If the horror of Sandy Hook doesn't move Congress to act on common sense gun laws, I have no idea what will. I’m so appreciative of the leadership of President Obama and Vice President Biden on this issue, especially their willingness to involve the Sandy Hook parents and families in this effort. Now, it’s time to get to work.

Anthony M January 16, 2013 at 06:19 PM
ban assault weapons again, last time this was in place crime increased. Genius. Or and more background checks, because we all know your local gang bangers do it legally. wait Adam didnt do it legally either. Political bs and stupid legislation. "calling on Congress to pass a $4 billion proposal to help communities keep 15,000 police officers on the streets, as well as new gun trafficking legislation that would “impose serious penalties on those who help get guns into the hands of criminals"." So does this include when the government sells guns to criminals?
Sam Giglio January 16, 2013 at 06:56 PM
Get the assault weapons and high capacity clips Mr President,( Nation wide.) Plus add on anyone using them in the act of a crime, 25 years in jail on top of the sentence for the crime commented
George Kenyon January 16, 2013 at 06:59 PM
2010 - 76,000 cases refered by the FBI to the InJustice Dept.of people using false information to try and legally obtain guns,,,,,,only 44 were prosecuted. There's gun laws at work.
Lou January 16, 2013 at 07:46 PM
Not going to happen because there is a provision in the obama care law (yes the obama care law) forbidding any executive order to regulate guns and ammo. Yes you read that right, look it up. Harry Reid, NRA member, knew obimbo would go after guns eventually so he slipped the provision in. It protects the second amendment and prohibits the Govt. from collecting data on gun owners. Thank you Nancy Pelosi for rushing obama care through. Pound Sand Obama
Richard Poulton January 16, 2013 at 08:02 PM
The lead AOL story is a lttle confusing, or someone doesn't know how to add or someone is padding the numbers. Story line is that the Presidents proposal will cost $500 million dollars, and will cover a bunch of stuff including the hire of 15,000 more PO. But, it also states the cost for PO will be 4 billion dollars. Which is it? Thats a hugh difference. And by the time Congress gets through adding a few hundred amendments this will be far beyond this proposed costs. One thing this state should do as soon as the legislature gets going is to make notice on the bottom of the CSP pistol permit application that submitting a false application will be re-classified a Class D felony per CGS 53a-157a. Currently it is only a misdeamnor per 157b. And enforce this as well. Even if this AW ban goes back into play, it will not require anyone already owning one to surrender it, or any mag over limit either. Everything will ne grand-fathered in.
George Kenyon January 16, 2013 at 08:11 PM
Lou- Of course Obama is now trying to change things on Obamacare to suit his needs. I say if he wants to start changing it, it should go in full back before Congress.
Richard Poulton January 16, 2013 at 08:28 PM
I just re-read Murphy's statement again. Is he clueless or what. And he says" If background checks were universal, our city street would be safer". Did he really say that? Is he that dumb? Sure, the gang bang-er gun carrying drug dealer is going to get a background check done before he goes and gets a gun.
Doreen Boudreau Hausler January 16, 2013 at 09:27 PM
Think again, Lou: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/10/gun-advocates-celebrate-secret-obamacare-provision-forbidding-exec-order-to-regulate-guns-and-ammo/
Just Us January 17, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Did Eric Holder do background checks on the cartel members he provided assault weapons to under Fast and Furious?
Peter T. Cianelli January 17, 2013 at 01:50 AM
The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government if we're going to have a debate about what rights we're actually going to guarantee under the Constitution, then we need to have an honest debate about what the Founders were attempting to guarantee "The Second Amendment is about making sure the population would not be controlled, dominated or oppressed by a government the principle of what they put into place had nothing to do with the kind of weapon they were guaranteeing, it was simply about matching force
Rich Halkyard January 17, 2013 at 12:48 PM
Thank you Peter for making a rational statement whether pro or con. This problem needs intelligent discussion from the citizenry, not name calling and ridicule.
Sam Giglio January 17, 2013 at 01:06 PM
I would have to say within a 200 mile radius around Connecticut we can not find the answer from one individual of why Newtown and of why such beautiful people had to die. But as a Nation working together we need to find the best answer to help stop this from taking place again. Lets not hide behind the 2nd Amendment we all know what it stands for. We are better then the 2nd Amendment and the right in that Amendment to own a weapon. Yes we have people in this Country who care nothing about laws and what is right or wrong, But I think we have more people who care to do what is right. That is were the answer lies.
Jennifer Cardella January 17, 2013 at 04:10 PM
The gang-bangers and drug dealers usually only kill each other, saving the justice system time and tax-payer dollars. The MENTALLY ILL are the ones who mass kill innocents...ease of access to the weapons and ammo in question only assures the body count will be staggering.
Richard Poulton January 17, 2013 at 05:07 PM
The check & balances system work in the Lanza case. He tried to purchase a rifle prior to the incident. Was denied. Gun dealer did his job. No sale. Now if his mother did her job as a parent and knowing her son had a mental illness issue, enough to try and get him committed, and removed all the guns from her home, this would not have happened, at least the way it did. Again, the background check system worked. Even if he was of age and went to purchase a rifle all he had to do is wait out the 2 weeks, when back ground checks are made, there is no way any dealer would have access to his mental health issues. All these so called Executive Orders will not provide any access to anyones mental health problems. No doctor will release this stuff. Called HIPPA.
Bob Fawkes January 17, 2013 at 05:30 PM
The most realible handgun I ever owned was a .357 Colt Python. Wore it on duty for years. Never failed me.
Peter T. Cianelli January 17, 2013 at 05:48 PM
Sam..." We are better than the 2d Amendment " ???? What an insulting comment to America's Founding Fathers..Predictably, after the last appalling act of an evil lunatic on children and unarmed citizens,You... the media... and left-wing politicians have been ablaze with emotional fear mongering, anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment rhetoric designed to divert attention from the facts.Every tragic shooting brings your radical left and your media minions swooping in and circling the scene like vultures laying siege to the latest unfortunates. You seem to never miss an opportunity to gain an advantage by picking the bones of victims and furthering your cause for total disarmament of Americans.....I say " MOLON LABE "
CitizenVoice January 17, 2013 at 05:51 PM
Thanks Doreen. I can't tell you how many times in the past few days I've had to explain this to people. I had a totally different source with the same information but I like yours better as it simplifies the language. Hopefully, some of the folks I deal with who have the "ya ain't takin' my guns" attitude will be able to understand it.
Richard Poulton January 17, 2013 at 06:27 PM
I too. Was my "off-duty" side arm. Nice kick. Should have never sold it.
Sam Giglio January 17, 2013 at 06:47 PM
Hay Peter I have no idea what Planet you come from, But i guess you are like the others who carrry a concealed weapon around as you have said many times on here. Insuiting I say not to the Founding Fathers. But one must wonder what they would think of People like you. Save your comments and put your efforts into finding an answer to stop killings with a GUN.
Richard Poulton January 17, 2013 at 07:18 PM
Sam, we disagree in so many ways politically, but Pete is correct. The decision not to apply for and obtain a carry permit is up to you. Thats your right. But I'll be dammed if I will let that right given to me or others who wish to do so be taken away or regulated to the point where "big brother" is breathing down my back to take that right away. I carried a side arm for a living. I also carried when off duty. After retiring I obtained my permit. No problem here in EH, but I'll tell you one thing if I had to go into NH or any other urban city for any reason I strapped it on. I think I had a better handle on the crime situation then you. Went to a movie, had it; wife wanted to go to the Mall, had it; went to court, definetly had it. BUT, if I went out and planned on having a few drinks, did not. So don't knock those that abide by the law and carry under that law and right.
Sam Giglio January 17, 2013 at 08:39 PM
Richard your all getting carried away on your right to carry a gun, Answer one question for all of us, Would you walk around with Assault Weapon?, Would you or do your wear your gun as you serve on the Board your on in a Public Meeting? Do you think thats right to do so? Would you or Peter have the nerve to sit in front of the victims Families in Newtown and tell them dont knock me for carry a gun. Stop blaming everyone who wants to make it better, No one wants to take your toys away, All i want is for this type of killing to stop. End of comments. Have a good day
Peter T. Cianelli January 18, 2013 at 12:09 AM
Sammy.... I don't walk around with an " Assault Weapon "....... I carry my S&W 9mm everywhere it is legal in the State of Connecticut.... My weapons are not toys and I pray to God I will never have to use them but if myself ... my family...... or anyone else I'm with is threatend by the evil people that want to do us harm ..... I will not hesitate to use them.....and I would never tell the victim's families ( or anyone else ) not to knock me for carrying a weapon...... This is why you and I are so different.... I believe in our US Constitution and the Bill of Rights ( 1st & 2nd Amendments ) ...... and as time passes I'm questioning your Patriotism with your comments...... so sad ..... God Bless......
Peter T. Cianelli January 18, 2013 at 01:24 AM
Sammy....1st..... I don't walk around with an Assault Weapon..... 2nd..... I carry my S&W 9mm everywhere in the State of CT. where it is legal to carry....3rd..... I support Our Country's 1st Amendment and would never ask victim's families such an irrogant question..... I pray to God that I will never have to use my weapon, however if that day should every come that an Evil person would try to harm my family, Im confident my training has prepared me well.....
Dan McCann January 18, 2013 at 01:34 AM
Sam what have always known is that your judgement is always in question. How did you feel about then Mayor April's Assistant having weapons? Didn't hear a squeak out of you. While what happened in Sandy Hook was horrific taking guns away is not going to stop the violence. They stopped booze in the 20's and people still drank and crime soared. Richard and Pete or anyone has the right to own firearms. It's in our Constitution. What we need to do is strengthen our permit process to include a yearly question to ask if they have been convicted of a felony. In addition to ask if there are any mental illness in the immediate family where the weapon is located. As George noted the process work well it was the Mother that contributed to the mass murder in Newtown. I would also pose this question to you Sam. How do you feel about Hollywood and their violent movies? What about the gaming industry? Taking guns is too easy Sam, intelligent thought provoking solutions are necessary to make our children safer. I would also like to see a mandatory 25 year sentence with no parole possible for a person in possession of an illegal weapon. Personally I don't understand why someone needs a Assault Weapon, I don't own one but I don't have the right to tell someone they can't have one and neither does the Federal Government. We have weapons to ensure that the Revolution isn't necessary keep that in mind. You Dems don't like that. Kind of Communist thinking...


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