Skip to main content

General Assembly Declines To Deliberate on Gun Issues


It was the intention of certain members of the General Assembly from the very moment the Bipartisan Task Force On Gun Violence Prevention And Children's Safety was formed to “e-cert” the normal legislative process, State Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams said in a recent interview.

The emergency certification of a bill bypasses usual legislative hearings and requires, as the name itself implies, an emergency to justify it. Generally, e-certs are reserved for times of crisis such as natural disasters or when action cannot be delayed because of an approaching timeline.

In this case, the “emergency” was triggered by a timeline set by legislative leaders who had tasked the bipartisan task force to complete its recommendations to the legislature before February 28, so that a bill could be produced on that date. Apparently, it is the assigned date that has created the emergency, which begs a question: If the task force completes its work on the 29th rather than the 28th will the legislature emergency certify its gun control measures without benefit of the committee’s work simply to meet a deadline?

The answer to that question, one supposes, would be no. And the answer exposes what may be a subtle legislative fraud.

The multiple murders at Sandy Hook, however horrific, were exceptional; when was the last time, other than at Sandy Hook, that a slaughter of 20 children and 6 faculty members occurred in Connecticut? For purposes of legislation, exceptions of this kind should not be discounted, but the ordinary legislative process is designed to produce as its end product a bill that has been properly vetted the provisions of which have been sufficiently debated by legislators whose votes sanction the committee work on the bill.

It should not be the business of the General Assembly to decline to do its business or to assign its constitutional responsibilities to ad hoc committees created either by the legislature or the governor.  Legislative short cuts of this kind that leave fewer fingerprints on a final bill allow cowardly politicians to assign responsibility for defective legislation to non-elected entities.

Speaking at the last of four public hearings on gun control in an empty Newtown High School auditorium, Mr. Williams explained why a bill on gun control must be produced without benefit of the usual committee hearings. The haste to produce a bill in the absence of data certified by the principal crime investigators – a final criminal report will not be due until March, if then – is a result of constituent demand: “When our constituents say 'We don't necessarily have all the answers, but we want you to do the right thing,' we need to rise to that challenge – and that's why we have this bipartisan task force," said Mr. Williams.

At the beginning of January, Governor Dannel Malloy announced “the formation of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, an expert panel that will review current policy and make specific recommendations in the areas of public safety, with particular attention paid to school safety, mental health, and gun violence prevention.” That panel’s initial report willnot be due until March 15, two weeks beyond the date the legislature has set to produce a bill that presumably will accomplish the same purpose without committee hearings.

This is legislating with a purpose. Unfortunately, it would appear that the purpose is not to write a bill that would satisfy the deepest longings of the parents in Sandy Hook whose children were so violently taken from them. Those parents want a bill that will quench the fire in their blood, so that after its passage everyone in Connecticut may say of Sandy Hook -- “never again.”

Bills based on surmises and vagrant hopes rather than hard data – which will not be vetted by the relevant oversight committees before a final bill is produced – suit other purposes.

Comments

dmoelling said…
What a gruesome (and to the legislators welcome) distraction from the Budget. If they wait the State Police report on Newtown is likely to produce at a minimum a less black and white picture and possibly a completely different story. Don your list of questions remains unanswered. I have always thought that Adam Lanza's mother tried to get him appropriate compulsory treatment but was thwarted by the State's inadequate mental health laws. She has been painted as negligent in having guns but no information on the storage and status of the weapons has been released. She seems (along with her ex-husband) dedicated to helping Adam and certainly money was not an issue.

There may also be some significant response issues by the Schools and Law enforcement (notice how quick the lawyer who wanted to file a suite was demonized).

No wonder people feel their rights are at constant risk. Not just the right to arms, but in many other areas.
Don Pesci said…
All that is true. It’s very possible that the parents in Sandy Hook will be victims twice; first of Adam Lanza, and then again of laws that will not solve the problem of UNAUTORIZED GUN USE. That IS the problem. Solve it and you will be able to say to the poor tortured parents in Sandy Hook, as well as to the parents of victims of crimes in major urban areas – Never again! But no one in the legislature, as far as I know, is thinking in these terms. If that were the case, the legislature would be trying to adopt measures in schools that shorten response time. And they would also be looking at emergent technology that shuts down the operation of weapons for all but those designated to use the weapons by authorized purchasers. Instead, we have proposals to tax bullets. Disgraceful!
peter brush said…
It should not be the business of the General Assembly to decline to do its business or to assign its constitutional responsibilities to ad hoc committees...
-----------------------------
Amen.
This sort of emergency legislating has become customary in Obama's D.C. First negotiate in private, pass the bill pronto, find out what it says post facto. The essence of self-government would seem to be a public deliberation process. What we are increasingly under is a government of experts and bureaucrats. On the bright side, a tax on bullets is likely to be a lot less destructive than Obamacare.
Anonymous said…
With due respect, Don, biometric technology, a darling of the Left, is not the answer.

Locks are.
Laurel O'Keefe said…
Interesting that after the Petit family murders and two other sets of murders and rapes all committed by early paroled career criminals and one just paroled inmate, none of the legislators felt the need to e-cert any new sentencing laws or parole changes; In fact many house members resented the governor forcing an emergency session upon them- former Governor Rell. There is something really wrong with this state in matters of violent crime.
Don Pesci said…

The General Assembly’s response to the Petit murders was to abolish capital punishment for criminals who commit multiple murders. http://donpesci.blogspot.com/search?q=abolish+capital+punishment

Popular posts from this blog

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e