Action Required: Contact the Connecticut workgroup on Gun Violence Prevention (UPDATE)

How can you prepare for the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group public hearing to be held this Monday (Jan. 28) in Hartford? Read on for more information. If you plan to speak, do your homework and prepare. Also, TAKE ACTION NOW and contact members of the working group. (Contact information below.)

The first hearing scheduled for Connecticut Dannel P. Malloy’s (D) working group is specific to school safety and will be held tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. Certainly, I would think it appropriate for them to discuss the abstract failure of the “gun free zone” concept, and I’m certain they will discuss school access and emergency preparedness as they should. That said, this post is dedicated to the hearing scheduled for 10 a.m. on Monday, Jan. 28 at Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building specific to Gun Violence Prevention.

Scroll down for a listing of representatives on this workgroup and contact them. Copy and paste my arguments listed below. Send them a link to this post. Do anything you can to forward this information to them and ask for a response or their specific rebuttal to all of my points. Don’t let them vote on emotion alone.

When it comes to this particular workgroup, gun control advocates are focused on two specific areas.

  1. A new, more comprehensive assault weapons ban with the definition of an “assault weapon” to be determined.
  2. A ban on high-capacity magazines with the definition of “high-capacity” to be determined.

I strongly believe our objective here in Connecticut is to ensure we do not lose rights we currently have. For those of you fighting for Constitutional carry (sans permit) or a reversal of the current Connecticut assault weapon ban, you’re just going to have to wait. We’ve been making solid progress for years, let’s not lose ground.

Add your own introductory paragraph, and copy and paste the following into your email to the members of the working group. Take action right now. The contact links below will send information directly to the individual members of the group.

You can also submit your testimony by email to [email protected]. Indicate in the subject of your email to which working group(s) you would like your testimony directed (gun violence prevention, school security, and/or mental health services). Be aware that any submitted testimony may be made public.

Update: (Courtesy an NRA email alert) If you plan on testifying at this public hearing, please make sure to arrive at 9 a.m. to sign up to speak. Speaker order will be determined by a lottery at 12:15 p.m., and public testimony will begin at 1:30 p.m. Please note, speakers will be limited to three minutes of testimony.  You may also choose to bring 30 copies of your testimony to share with members of the Task Force. Those arriving after the completion of the lottery will have their names placed at the end of the speaker list.


Point 1: A personal defense weapon, semi-automatic rifle, sport rifle or patrol rifle (whatever you want to call it) is a reasonable choice for self-defense in your home.

These firearms – in the hands of the public – are referred to as “assault weapons” by the anti-gun crowd and yet the same weapons used by law enforcement are referred to as patrol rifles. As such, law enforcement and those who have taken the step to own one have found that – along with a being a good sporting rifle for target shooting and hunting rifle – they are a reasonable choice for self-defense in the home.

  1. You can mount a light, red dot sight and/or a laser to the rifle to make it easy to used and aim during the day or night.
  2. They have a reasonable recoil, making the gun – for many users – easier to shoot as compared to a defense-caliber shotgun or pistol.
  3. They can be customized to “fit” a variety of body types and shooting styles. They can be configured and adjusted for different shooting distances (less than 5 yards to more than 200 yards).
  4. The .223/5.56 self-defense round is appropriate for use within a home, even in an urban environment. Ballistic experts have found rounds from these calibers “dump energy” quickly and break apart or begin to tumble after penetrating the first barrier. Will rifle rounds go through walls? You bet. Will pistol calibers like 9mm, .40 and .45 go through walls? You bet. Will shotgun rounds go through walls? You bet. That said, there is significant evidence the .223/5.56 self-defense rounds penetrate no more than, and often less than traditional handgun calibers and many shotgun rounds.
  5. A rifle is much more capable of stopping a threatwith fewer rounds on target – as compared to a pistol.
  6. Semi-automatic rifles are more accurate than a pistol or shotgun.
  7. Ammunition is (normally) readily available and (normally) priced within reason. Present time excluded.
  8. You can buy high-capacity magazines for many semi-automatic rifles.

Which brings us to the second topic.

Point 2: Ten rounds will probably not be enough in a self-defense situation.

Recent studies on self-defense shootings have shown hit rates of less than 20 percent in many LEO self-defense situations. If a bad guy points a lethal weapon at a cop, the cop has every right to stop the threat just like we have the right to defend ourselves. If only one-in-five rounds hit the target, and you are limited to 10 rounds, there is a good chance you will not be able to stop the threat. Of course, the bad guys will not be limited when it comes to their own magazine, putting those who want to do you harm at a significant advantage.

  1. In a self-defense situation, you want to avoid manipulating the weapon at all except for pulling the trigger straight back. Law enforcement and civilians do not favor high-capacity magazines so they can shoot more rounds, they favor them so they can manipulate their weapon less.
  2. Yes, reloading additional magazines is possible, but that is manipulating the weapon and even though it can be done quickly, it takes time you may not have.
  3. There have been many documented instances where someone has been shot two, three, four or even eight times and they continued to be a threat to the person or persons defending themselves. Ask any EMT, nurse or ER physician who has dealt with a combative person who has been shot multiple times.

Point 3: A ten round magazine limit will not stop mass shootings.

The Columbine shooters used high-capacity magazines in their rifles when they were banned, but the Virginia Tech shooter used mostly 10-round capacity magazines for his handgun (not a rifle) and he was able to murder 32 students and injure another 18. Even though he had access to 17, 19 and 30-round magazines (he could have purchased them) for his Glock 17 pistol, he chose to use 17, standard capacity 10-round magazines. (He did have a couple 15 round capacity magazines, but it is not clear he used them at all.)

From the official Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel, Chapter 6, page 74 (PDF Link), with my emphasis in bold.

The panel also considered whether the previous federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned 15-round magazines would have made a difference in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders could have been about as deadly in this situation.

If the Newtown shooter used a standard capacity 9mm Glock 17 pistol with 10-round magazines and murdered 20 children and six adults, what would be the gun-control discussion today?

Point 4: The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, rather it’s specific to the people’s right to bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment is not exclusively about the right to defend yourself and your family either. From Federalist 46.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and many other gun-control politicians are afraid to trust the people. Yes, the people’s right to bear arms forms a barrier from government tyranny. Do I think citizens will need to “take up arms” against a tyrannical government during my lifetime? No, I do not. But for those of you who think this will never be a concern – and roll your eyes at the thought – may I borrow your crystal ball? It must be a comfort knowing your government will never exhibit outright tyrannical behavior 25, 50, or 100 years from now.


Here is a listing of the members on the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group. Each member is listed with a link to an online form or an email address where you can contact him or her. Take action immediately by contacting them.

5 replies
  1. Shock and Awe
    Shock and Awe says:

    Hi Steve I’ve posted the links to your articles on the second amendment about a hundred times in the last couple weeks (not much of an exaggeration) and I’ve gotten three responses, killing another person is always wrong and never justified, you’re just a stupid conservative, or the most common response is silence, even when i message them directly with the link and they never seem to respond.? Keep up the great work, I sent this link to several Facebook page admins I know that are likely to share the link too.

      • ricbee
        ricbee says:

        You missed a key point,citizens are buying these rifles because they can without going thru the trouble of getting a carry permit. They also know they are probably lousy shots,but firing off 30 rounds should make the most hardened criminal bound outa town.

  2. palehorse58
    palehorse58 says:

    This is the message that I have sent several of the representitives. I could not get into some of ?their sites because of high volumns
    Dear Sir
    As a law abiding citizen of this state I find it reprehensible that you would consider taking my rights away. I am a Vietnam era veteran who served with honor. I have two grandchildren in school and worry about their safety every day because people like you who have protection all around you think nothing about putting a persons life at danger by continually creating gun free zones. Do you really think a criminal will pay attention to your stupid laws when there are so many on the books now that the mentally challenged and criminal minds don,t pay any attention to.

Comments are closed.