Connecticut lawmakers return to work and guns take center stage

NEW YORK Tue Jan 8, 2013 5:02pm EST

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - At the funeral of one of the 20 children gunned down at a Connecticut elementary school, a grieving mother grabbed state Senator Beth Bye by the shoulders and said: "You're going to do something, right?"

Bye and Nelba Márquez-Greene, whose daughter Ana, 6, was among the first graders shot dead with six staff members in the December 14 massacre, have known each other for years. Bye had asked the Marquez-Greene family how she could help and the answer was clear: Prevent this from ever happening again.

On Wednesday, nearly four weeks after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School reignited the national debate over gun control and mental health care, the Connecticut state legislature will begin its 2013 session and the Newtown tragedy is expected to loom large.

Bye, who represents West Hartford, has announced a package of bills to limit access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and require that all Connecticut firearms be registered by model and serial number.

The bills would also institute a 50 percent sales tax on the sale of ammunition and magazines, prohibit the purchase of ammunition over the Internet and limit the sale of ammunition to those with Connecticut firearms permits.

"I just feel a personal mandate," said Bye. "These parents have just lost their child and already they're advocating for something to happen. We're only going to have one opportunity in Connecticut to do something like this. I want to take this opportunity and make sure we do something significant."

While Connecticut is a Democratic state and has among the toughest gun control laws in the country, Bye's proposals are likely to meet tough opposition and are by no means assured of passage. Gun manufacturing has long been a local industry in the state and companies have used the threat of gun makers leaving the state to thwart major restrictions.

The proposals have been greeted with fierce opposition from gun rights groups, who say the restrictions would unfairly limit the rights of responsible gun owners and would do little if anything to prevent another mass shooting.

"All these gun bills really don't do anything to solve the problem of Newtown," said Robert Crook, head of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, which counts 35,000 members. "The person who did that had broken all of our gun laws."

Gunman Adam Lanza, 20, first shot his mother with a gun registered under her name and carried out the school shooting before turning the gun on himself.


More than any other recent mass shooting, the Newtown massacre has galvanized efforts to keep guns and ammunitions out of the hands of criminals.

In Washington, President Barack Obama convened a task force to search for ways to quell gun violence in the United States.

Maryland's Democratic Governor, Martin O'Malley, plans to introduce new gun restrictions, while in Virginia, House of Delegates Speaker William Howell, a Republican, has told local media the General Assembly is likely to review laws on restricting gun ownership for the mentally ill.

In Illinois, where in December a federal appeals court threw out a ban on the public possession of firearms, lawmakers have 180 days to draft and enact new laws relating to the possession of firearms in public.

Perhaps nowhere is the debate more emotional or personal than in Connecticut. While Democrats control the governor's mansion and both houses of the state legislature, recent efforts to curb gun rights have been defeated.

Adam Winkler, author of "Gunfight," a history of U.S. gun rights, said state gun control measures such as ammunitions taxes are of limited value because gun buyers can get around them by simply visiting neighboring states.

"What you need are federal gun control laws that include all states," said Winkler.

He said the gun control debate will come down to each side's ability to generate grassroots support.

Gun-control advocates have called a March on Washington for January 26, while gun-rights groups are planning a Gun Appreciation Day on January 19.

Mayors against Illegal Guns has launched a Demand A Plan campaign to require gun control measures such as universal background checks.

Nelba Márquez-Greene, who could not be reached for comment, has called for a change on a Facebook page set up to remember Ana: "I want to live in a better America - one where our leaders are working collaboratively for the good of the people and the protection of children. Please! No more! Ya basta!"

(Reporting by Edith Honan. Editing by Andre Grenon)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (5)
hatchmn wrote:
The Bill of Rights is not negotiable. Those who oppose the Bill of Rights are enemies of America Some misguided, if not treasonous, U.S. Senators, lawmakers and public servants in the executive branch of government currently suffer under the dangerous misconception that the Bill of Rights only exists because they allow it to. They foolishly believe that they can selectively pick and choose which rights to nullify via new legislation or by the stroke of an executive pen. This delusion is not merely wrong-headed and arrogant, it poses a grave threat to the Republic and all its future generations. Enemies of the Bill of Rights are enemies of America. Whether those enemies be found in the media, in Congress, in the Oval Office or on the streets of America, they are unworthy of being called “Americans” at all. Those who despise liberty do not deserve liberty. Those who deliberately and maliciously attack the Bill of Rights do not deserve the protections of the Bill of Rights. Those who despise the Constitution and its Bill of Rights are publicly indicating they would prefer to live as subjects, not Citizens

Jan 08, 2013 7:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crazy_Redneck wrote:
We cannot allow these trespasses upon our natural rights. It’s not that I’m indifferent to the mass killing of children. I do care. But people need to have a way out of bad situations. Therefore, I’m pro-choice in this matter.

Hey! That sounds familiar…

Jan 08, 2013 7:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lawgone wrote:
I feel bad for the parents and children of this incident just as everyone else. What does this parent in the article expect this lawmaker to do? “Assault rifles” were already banned in CT so I assume that the rifle used was grandfathered in, but without knowing the facts of the investigation, who knows. CT also has the 5th most restrictive gun laws in the US. Even if the person that committed this atrocity couldn’t get guns he more than likely would have found another way of carrying out his intentions. If this parent means doing something about mentally unstable people when she said “you’re going to do something, right?”, its a valid question. My opinion on gun rights is that its a state issue, not federal, as states have their own Constitutions and gun laws and thats the way it should remain. If you want to know how bans and prohibitions really work watch the movie Lawless, its based on a true story or study the history of prohibition or take a look at Chicago and Detroit. If guns and ammunition are restricted to the point that law abiding citizens can no longer get them, there will be a huge flow of illegal arms and ammunition into this country the likes of which will dwarf the illegal flow of drugs by billions of dollars. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Jan 08, 2013 9:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.