Connecticut will hold hearings: School safety, gun control & mental health (Update)

Will you make the effort to attend? Unlike New York, Connecticut residents will have the opportunity to make their voices heard at four hearings with members of the governor’s three working groups. A combined bi-partisan task force hearing will be the last to be held – in Newtown – on Jan. 30.

On Jan. 3, Connecticut’s governor announced his advisory commissions.

Governor Dannel P. Malloy today 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. …

The Advisory Commission will be chaired by Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson.  Its members, which Governor Malloy will announce in the coming days, will consist of experts in various areas, including education, mental health, law enforcement and emergency response.  Details and a schedule of the commission’s meetings will be forthcoming.

These are advisory commissions and not state legislator committee meetings. I would expect those to be scheduled after the March 15 deadline Malloy has set for his commissions. Although not provided on the governor’s website, here is the current list of public hearings associated with the working groups.

School Safety Working Group Public Hearing
Friday, January 25th, 2013
Legislative Office Building
9:30 a.m., Room 2C

Gun Violence Prevention Working Group Public Hearing
Monday, January 28th, 2013
Legislative Office Building
10 a.m., Room 2C

Mental Health Working Group Public Hearing
Tuesday, January 29th, 2013
Legislative Office Building
10 a.m., Room 2C

Full Bi-Partisan Task Force Public Hearing
Wednesday, January 30th, 2013
Newtown High School
6 p.m.

The state has not taken the opportunity to publish the members of the individual working groups, but I’m certain the list must exist somewhere. (Update: You can find all the members of the sub-groups here.) You will find individual articles mentioning the names of state legislators who have been asked to serve within these working groups. Contact them and express your opinion as you would normally do. If you know members who are in the working groups, provide their contact information along with the group they are in below (comments). Your voices must be heard.

Take these public hearings seriously, and remember their individual focus. As an example, I would not go to the mental health working group if you want to speak about high-capacity magazines. I ensure you will have little time. Do your research, make a plan, create good notes … speak your mind.

Update: 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. I find it interesting all of the representatives in each sub-group are politicians. Who are advising these folks?

13 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    If politicians were subject to the same rigorous background (and now, mental health checks), we would have a much more responsible legislation, and considerably fewer of the current menagerie of hacks infesting the halls of government.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      I am working with what I have. ?The comment is just as accurate and applicable as the knee jerk legislation said pols are trying to jam down our throats, with the notable exception that my legislative suggestion would do far more good for the country than any of this “gotta do something, no matter how pointless and ineffective” horse byproduct coming out of the pols. ?And you will note that no party preference was mentioned…

  2. joe_m
    joe_m says:

    I sent an email to Craig Minor that requested a rider to any legislation:
    My suggestion is to add a rider to any legislation that puts our elected officials directly responsible for any ?solution? that fails. This is to prevent meaningless bills that sound good but do not solve any issues. The rider should be something like:
    ?any yes vote for this bill includes a personal guarantee that if the bill fails in any manner in its purpose that all who voted yes or signed this bill into law will give up their freedom and spend the rest of their lives in jail and will turn over all their wealth and estates to the victims of this failed legislation?.?
    In other word, put…

  3. JBS
    JBS says:

    Dims: Pithy. Accurate. Obviously unwelcome to a liberal’s ear.
    I attended some of the ’93 AWB hearings, if you could call them that. The fix was in. The Democrat legislators went through the motions to placate a vocal “minority”; nothing presented against the proposed AW law made the least bit of difference. Representatives of the “shooting public” were portrayed in the media as green-toothed rubes; firearms experts were dismissed as pro-gun shills. A pro-AWB political-appointee, a hack police chief, Sullivan, gave an impassioned mini-seminar on how police bullet-resistant vests were no match for evil AWs. Lawmakers were enthralled with hardly a dry Democrat eye. Jim Brady even made a cameo appearance with his multimillionaire manager-wife. (The Brady Campaign is big business.)
    I may attend some of the “hearings.” True political theater up close is infrequent in CT; it at least deserves making fresh popcorn. The cast may have changed since ’93, but the story is the same; the ending is a foregone conclusion.?
    Sage advice: work “with what you got [sic].”

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Are you saying that as an inhabitant of a state thoroughly dominated by Dems, or in a country where conservatives (sorta) control one half of one third of the federal gov’t, and have no intention of working with Republicans?

  4. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I see that Steve is trying to nudge people into participating in whatever “debate” may take place in CT and asking the readers of the post to take the “public hearings seriously”. That message does not seem to get traction from his audience.

    • Steve McGough
      Steve McGough says:

      Don’t assume you know the audience who reads the blog. Less than .4 percent of those who have been here in the last 30 days have posted a comment. I don’t even know who my audience is or what they are thinking.

  5. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    Trust the government? Ask an American Indian! ?Read about the massacre at Wounded Knee- turn in your firearms and let the government take care of you? LOL Sammy!

Comments are closed.