Please join us in welcoming back Rep. Mike Lawlor to CTLP. -CGG
Hello everyone, and thanks for asking me back again for a live blog. CTLP is part of my daily diet of political news and views, so its an honor to be the featured guest for the evening!
Aside from fighting for the people of my hometown, East Haven, at the capitol, I spend most of my time working on Judiciary Committee issues. Our committee typically deals with the widest array of issues, and this year was no exception. Some bills end up becoming state law [like requiring gun owners to report the theft or loss of their firearms], others allow for us to learn about and debate cutting edge public policy controversies [like rules for use of tasers] and still others [like marriage equality] fall short of passage and are sure to re-emerge next session. We also end up dealing with controversies like openness in the judicial branch, and corruption in the trash hauling industry.
Among the Judiciary Bills enacted this year, are:
- toughening the penalties for sex offenders
- preventing the disruption of funerals
- compensation for persons wrongfully convicted and incarcerated
- the ability for suffering patients to use medical marijuana
- increasing the penalties for the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products to minor
- a new requirement to penalize irresponsible gun owners who do not report their guns as missing or stolen
- changing the law that resulted in teenagers registering as sex offenders for having consensual sex with other teens close in age to them
- better protection for families involved in domestic violence including the ability of police to now issue a weekend protective order
In addition, there were a few pieces of legislation originating from the Judiciary Committee that I believe there is a broad consensus to pass in both chambers, however due to several reasons the General Assembly did not have the time to vote on in concurrence. Some of these may be resolved in the upcoming special session, including:
- the expansion of Megans Law to protect children in cyberspace from sex predators
- removing the statute of limitations in sexual assault cases if the perpetrator is identified with DNA evidence
- raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to age eighteen
- allowing the courts to have more power in dealing with youth who run away
- reform of the process in which the judicial branch sets rules
I will be advocating for these issues to be addressed in the near future whether that happens in the next regular session or possibly a special session and I believe there is concurrence among my colleagues to pass these issues as well.
In the months to come we may be hosting informational public hearings regarding issues like the state role in dealing with undocumented aliens, possible pardons for witches executed in Connecticut in the late 17th Century and our on going focus on prison overcrowding and racial disparities in the criminal justice system. I plan to meet with folks from our states law enforcement agencies to follow up on the infamous Ken Krayeske incident to discuss options for future oversight of intelligence gathering activities on the state and local level. I am also a member of the new sentencing commission and the sex offender risk assessment board, both of which represent major shifts in state policy.
Finally, I should mention that Cyberspace is increasingly coming under scrutiny by the General Assembly. Even blogs like this were threatened by the so-called social networking bill. I had the opportunity to speak with bloggers both in person and via e-mail in regards to making sure that they were not inadvertently affected by a piece of legislation that had been proposed with good intentions, but had been written in such a way that could have resulted in some blogs having to shut down.
Thanks for joining me here this evening, and I will address any comments or concerns that you have!
104 responses so far ↓
Welcome Rep. Lawlor and thank you for being here with us tonight. I have a few questions submitted from commenters who could not be at the live blog which I’ll sprinkle through the discussion. The first one is from Toucan.
the Deluca affair is over in the criminal justice system – he plead out to a lesser state charge where the statute of limitations had passed and the feds said OK. However, the uncontested allegations in the arrest warrant prepared specifically to support that plea deal made it clear that DeLuca lied to a federal agent and he told an convicted federal tax cheater who had just been indicted on several federal felony charges that he would use his office to help him whenever he could – thatâs undisputed though neither the press nor his Senate Republican colleagues have called him on it. You made it clear the full Senate can take some action – do you think your Democratic colleagues will do anything about it?
Hello Representative Lawlor. Thanks for joining us tonight.
My first question is about the budget. Apparently with the deal struck between the legislative leaders and the governor, Democrats did NOT get:
1) a progressive income tax
2) an increase in the property tax credit “for the middle class”
3) the elimination of the sales tax on clothing under $50
4) a sales tax on items sold over the internet
Also, according to press accounts, it is unlikely you will get the earned income tax credit either. Can you explain to some of your liberal readers here how a veto-proof 107 Democrats in the House and 24 Democrats in the Senate could deliver virtually nothing liberals believe in with regards to the budget?
Hi Rep. Lawlor,
What would you say was the biggest success/biggest disappointment of the session?
Also: do recent victories for marriage equality in Massachusetts and New York encourage you to try to pass gay marriage here in the near future?
How is it we can in good conscience increase taxes on 17% of the adult population by an average of over 270 dollars a year when that segment of society is demonstrably earning below 30K?
I would suspect that most of these citizens would tend to vote with the Democrats; is it your position to increase taxes on your own supporters?
Hey, guys, great to be here.
First, Deluca. What happens to him now is up to the senate, and Im not a member of that body. However, I would point out that our precedent is that these types of inquiries and any subsequent punishment should be strongly bi partisan. The four such inquires, one into a probate judge, two into members of the House, and of course the Rowland inquiry, were carried out by bi partisan committees, with equal numbers of democrats and republicans, and two co chairs, one democrat and one republican. So, if the senate does anything, it will be up to the republicans to signal a willingness to proceed.
You are correct that the guilty plea was to a crime for which the one year statute of limitations had clearly expired. This signals that there was a deal with the feds, presumably that he plead to a state misdemeanor or face a near certain federal indictment on more serious charges. It is also clear that he has a responsibility to cooperate in the on going federal process and, if necessary, testify at the federal trial of those indicted. More should be know n about this in the weeks and months to come and, as has been the case in the past, pressure will build for an appropriate senate inquiry.
Also: you may have already answered this at some point, but I’m curious about your opinion regarding the municipal ID cards Mayor DeStefano is issuing to city residents, including illegal immigrants–and the ICE raids that took place shortly thereafter.
Regarding the budget deal. Yes, I am very disappointed. The democratic budget proposal would have meant VERY significant tax cuts for the vast majority of my constituents in East Haven. The doubling of the property tax credit in particular would have been very important as our local taxes rise following a revaluation this year.
[check out our candidate’s website: http://www.aprilinnovember.net
The veto proof majority isnt all that when it comes to the budget though. Per the state constitution, we need the governors signature to exceed the spending cap, which almost any budget would do. Without the signature, we cannot constitutionally even pass a budget, let alone override a veto. The spending cap language is a result of the 1991 income tax standoff. Though well intentioned, it fails to take into account federal mandates and federal funds. Even the state crime victim compensation fund, which is funded entirely by fees paid by convicted criminals, is counted in the spending cap. Believe it or not, crime victims cant be paid even though there is a surplus in the fund, because of the spending cap.
I did participate in some preliminary budget discussions today, and we have a caucus tomorrow to get all of the details. It seems that there is general agreement to postpone until next session discussions about the earned income tax credit. Disappointing, but unavoidable given the Governor’s intransigence.
Thanks for spending some time with us at CTLP Rep. Lawlor. As someone who does not subscribe to any particular political philosophy I’d be interested to hear what exactly is the progressive Democrats’ philosophy on governance. Could you shed some light on that topic?
We heard for about a year and half about court openess. I found it to be a personal failure of the judicial committee of which you chair that not one single bill made it to the floor. Not one bill for court openess made it to the governor’s office. My question is to Michael Lawlor. After a year and half of you talking about court openess are you embarrassed that not one bill got passed?
Gideon asks:
I have a question about two bills that were passed in the just concluded legislative session. The first is HB 7269, which passed with an amendment restricting defense attorneysâ access to evidence that is the basis for a prosecution, given Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which holds that digitally created materials are protected speech. What was the driving force behind this legislation and why did you vote in support of it?
Second, SB 1458, which creates a âtender yearsâ exception to hearsay. Were you not concerned about the Constitutionality of this legislation in light of Crawford v. Washington?
Thank you for your time.
Following the rate increases by United Illuminating you sent a mailer to your constituents this past winter entitled “Fighting the Electric Rate Increase” which offered a menu of energy assistance programs, and stated “the Legislature will attempt to prevent these increases in the first few weeks of session” which was in January.
As we see now, you did not prevent the electric rate increases, and no bill emerged from the legislature that directly or effectively cuts the increase ratepayers were dealt. The only measure even addressed the electric industry did not emerge until June.
What is your response to your constituents who may want to know why you failed to deliver the savings to them that you promised in your mail piece, and do you think Rep. Steve Fontana should be allowed to continue as Energy Chair after this debacle?
Yeah, the New Haven raids were really kinda sad. Most of the families affected seem to consist of both citizens and undocumented aliens, with children left alone while parents are carted off to federal detention facilities. ICE, in particular, is a disaster. These symbolic raids dont really seem to help. The immigration folks cant seem to get anything right. First they require everyone to have a passport, then the seem to be completely incapable of issuing passports without months and months of delay, and now they are simply waiving the passport rules for the foreseeable future. In my opinion we would be better off if we have a name address and photo of everyone who has entered the country, even if they have overstayed a visa [which is the case with the vast majority of "undocumented aliens" or if the entered illegally]. A more realistic system which makes sure immigrants pay taxes, and employers pay unemployment, workers comp, and minimum wage. I’m not really bothered by the “amnesty” issue. If thats what it takes to get the system working and to get some control over foreigns workers in the country, then I think it should be done.
[quote comment="13592"]Thanks for spending some time with us at CTLP Rep. Lawlor. As someone who does not subscribe to any particular political philosophy I’d be interested to hear what exactly is the progressive Democrats’ philosophy on governance. Could you shed some light on that topic?[/quote]
Well, you know I am a college professor in real life, and my answer to that kind of open ended question could go on for hours. Just ask my friends! Could you be a bit more specific?
Will you re-introduce marriage equality and gender identity bills in 2008?
HH,
Wasn’t Fontana’s fault. His bill was a lot better than the one which got to the floor.
Since the judicial committee did not have enough support to pass gay marriage in the full house and senate they withdrew the bill. I assume to try thier luck with the supreme court of connecticut. Now gay marriage is soley in the hands of the justices of the supreme court of connecticut and they alone will tell the legislature what the next step is. Or the supreme court can say gay marriage is unconstitutional. It is now up to the courts. Is this correct rep Lawlor?
Sure, I’ll try to be more specific. What is the progressive Democrats’ ideaology on government spending, the overall scope of government and the government getting involved in social issues (i.e. gay marriage, raising children, etc.)
[quote comment="13594"]Gideon asks:
I have a question about two bills that were passed in the just concluded legislative session. The first is HB 7269, which passed with an amendment restricting defense attorneysâ access to evidence that is the basis for a prosecution, given Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which holds that digitally created materials are protected speech. What was the driving force behind this legislation and why did you vote in support of it?
Thank you for your time.[/quote]
Here is the language of the bill:
Notwithstanding section 54-86a of the general statutes, in any criminal proceeding, any property or material that constitutes child pornography shall remain in the care, custody and control of the state, and a court shall deny any request by the defendant to copy, photograph, duplicate or otherwise reproduce any property or material that constitutes child pornography so long as the attorney for the state makes the property or material reasonably available to the defendant. Such property or material shall be deemed to be reasonably available to the defendant if the attorney for the state provides the defendant, the defendant’s attorney or any individual the defendant may seek to qualify to furnish expert testimony at trial, ample opportunity for inspection, viewing, and examination of the property or material at a state facility. For the purposes of this section, “child pornography” shall have the same meaning as in section 53a-193 of the general statutes.
This means that defendants’ attorneys can inspect the child porn, but cant take it from the state’s custody. This is to keep distribution of these images to an absolute minimum. It is not unusual to limit custody of such evidence as drugs and other things which could be destroyed or misused. As long as there is a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence, there are no constitutional problems
Ghengis,
I actually thought the Fonfara bill was better. Most House members did too.
[quote comment="13594"]Gideon asks:
Second, SB 1458, which creates a âtender yearsâ exception to hearsay. Were you not concerned about the Constitutionality of this legislation in light of Crawford v. Washington?
Thank you for your time.[/quote]
The final language of the bill was agreed upon by the judges’ rules committee, the prosecutors and public defenders. It was changed substantially from the original proposal to meet the concerns expressed, especially from the defense bar. Many other states have adopted similar rules post Crawford.
[quote comment="13595"]Following the rate increases by United Illuminating you sent a mailer to your constituents this past winter entitled “Fighting the Electric Rate Increase” which offered a menu of energy assistance programs, and stated “the Legislature will attempt to prevent these increases in the first few weeks of session” which was in January.
As we see now, you did not prevent the electric rate increases, and no bill emerged from the legislature that directly or effectively cuts the increase ratepayers were dealt. The only measure even addressed the electric industry did not emerge until June.
The failure to enact a more immediate solution to the energy problem was a major disappointment and a definite failure of the legislature and governor. The bill we did pass was significant [although the governor vetoed some of the more significant portions of it], but we should have acted much earlier and we should have gone farther.
Steve Fontana is a great legislator and he wanted to do more than we did. Im not exactly sure what caused the breakdown of communications between the House and Senate, but I hope the Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem address these before next session.
What is your response to your constituents who may want to know why you failed to deliver the savings to them that you promised in your mail piece, and do you think Rep. Steve Fontana should be allowed to continue as Energy Chair after this debacle?[/quote]
[quote comment="13603"]Ghengis,
I actually thought the Fonfara bill was better. Most House members did too.[/quote]
Even so, Fonfara can hardly be held responsible for a bill he opposed.
[quote comment="13604"][quote comment="13594"]Gideon asks:
Second, SB 1458, which creates a âtender yearsâ exception to hearsay. Were you not concerned about the Constitutionality of this legislation in light of Crawford v. Washington?
Thank you for your time.[/quote]
The final language of the bill was agreed upon by the judges’ rules committee, the prosecutors and public defenders. It was changed substantially from the original proposal to meet the concerns expressed, especially from the defense bar. Many other states have adopted similar rules post Crawford.[/quote]Rep. Lawlor, I wasn’t aware that the rules committee’s input had been received. I remember there was some testimony that this bill should be shelved pending their meetings. I am glad to know that the bill was substantially modified after receiving such input. Thank you for answering!
[quote comment="13603"]Ghengis,
I actually thought the Fonfara bill was better. Most House members did too.[/quote]
I meant, FONTANA. I knew I’d screw that up someday.
[quote comment="13606"][quote comment="13603"]Ghengis,
I actually thought the Fonfara bill was better. Most House members did too.[/quote]
Even so, Fonfara can hardly be held responsible for a bill he opposed.[/quote]
But he CAN be held responsible for being ineffective. He gummed up the process for two years.
HH, Fontana was not necessarily ineffective. He did emerge with a pretty comprehensive bill, conflict with the Senate or no.
Dear rep Lawlor.
My question is two parts. First I realize you represent the citizens of East Haven. Do you believe that you should cast your vote based on the majority beliefs of the citizens of East haven who have elected you?
My second question is Do the majority of your constituents oppose legalizing gay marriage in the city of east haven or are they proponents of gay marriage ? I ask this because you seem to be the biggest voice in the house promoting legalizing gay marriage?
[quote comment="13600"]Since the judicial committee did not have enough support to pass gay marriage in the full house and senate they withdrew the bill. I assume to try thier luck with the supreme court of connecticut. Now gay marriage is soley in the hands of the justices of the supreme court of connecticut and they alone will tell the legislature what the next step is. Or the supreme court can say gay marriage is unconstitutional. It is now up to the courts. Is this correct rep Lawlor?[/quote]
Well, for sure, the next word we hear on marriage equality in Connecticut will come from our supreme court. I watched the oral arguments, and I must say the plaintiffs presented a stronger case than even I thought they would. Some of the justices seemed to be surprisingly inclined to think about the constitutional implications of our separate by equal marriage/civil union system. It’s impossible to predict what they will do, but I suspect they will find a way to throw it back to the legislature.
The vote in the Judiciary Committee also suprised me. Our vote count in the days leading up to the vote showed a one vote victory, if everyone showed up. Instead, it was a convincing victory, with bi partisan support added by Sen Rorabach [the one missing vote was Rep. Klarides who has consistently supported gay and lesbian equality]. I think it is better for the legislature to decide this than for the courts to do it. All the momentum seems to be in the direction for full acceptance of gays and lesbians, here and elsewhere.
Hi, Mike!
You said:
[T]here were a few pieces of legislation originating from the Judiciary Committee that I believe there is a broad consensus to pass in both chambers, however due to several reasons the General Assembly did not have the time to vote on in concurrence.
I’m a novice as far as understanding how some bills die and others doesn’t, but my impression is that sometimes bills that pass committee are killed by letting the clock run out on the session before bringing them up for a vote, and that this is usually due to political pressure somewhere. The first 3 bills you list in this category (expanding Megan’s law, DNA evidence changes, and raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction) seem like they’d sail through both chambers. Can you expand on what happened that allowed these bills to die (or at least become dormant) by the end of the session?
[quote comment="13610"]HH, Fontana was not necessarily ineffective. He did emerge with a pretty comprehensive bill, conflict with the Senate or no.[/quote]
I’d call a guy who spent two hours of floor debate begging his caucus not to support the bill they eventually passed ineffective. But we can agree to disagree
Rep. Lawlor this is more of a political question, but I’m curious who you like out of the 2008 Democratic Presidential field. I saw your Dodd sticker at the JJB. Are there any other candidates that you particularly life or dislike?
how some bills die and others doesnât,
Ugh…obviously I mean “don’t” rather than “doesn’t”…I need to remember to hit “Preview”!
Rep Lawlor,
If all the momentum seems to be heading in direction of full acceptance of gays and lesbians then why did you not put gay marriage to a vote?? Why did you pull the bill??Another question to you: What is your comments of why the connecticut state attorney general Blumenthal did not argue the gay marriage case himself. Why did he send a subordinate to argue the biggest case in the history of connecticut. And do you think he has politicized his office by not arguing the gay marriage case?
>>In the months to come we may be hosting informational public hearings regarding issues like ⌠possible pardons for âwitchesâ executed in Connecticut in the late 17th Century
You know, I just have to ask about this one from your opening postâŚ
Iâm sure this is an important legislative priority⌠the last of these âwitchesâ was hanged in 1662. What kind of evidence will you be using to overturn the verdicts? I mean any witnesses still alive would have to be witches or warlocks. And then weâd have to execute them. Could get very messy.
Last I heard, there were some ongoing legal challenges to the system for public financing of campaigns here in CT….do you have any idea where things stand with public financing in CT? Did this budget deal include an allocation of funding for a public finance fund?
[quote comment="13611"]Dear rep Lawlor.
My question is two parts. First I realize you represent the citizens of East Haven. Do you believe that you should cast your vote based on the majority beliefs of the citizens of East haven who have elected you?
My second question is Do the majority of your constituents oppose legalizing gay marriage in the city of east haven or are they proponents of gay marriage ? I ask this because you seem to be the biggest voice in the house promoting legalizing gay marriage?[/quote]
Well, that is the classic legislative dilemma. The theory is that legislators are elected and sent to the capitol to listen to the debates and cast votes on public policy issues. I can say without hesitation that the amount of information we receive about a whole variety of bills is staggering, and hard for me to keep up with all of it. Public hearings give us the opportunity to learn and ask questions about all of these issues. Then we make decisions weighing all of this. Im sure no one agrees with their local legislator 100% of the time, but in the end I believe I have a responsibility to explain my views and my votes and allow the election to take its course.
Regarding gay marriage, I think East Haveners are much like the rest of the state. There is roughly a 50/50 split on marriage, but at least two thirds support civil unions. These numbers are changing with time, all in the direction of more support and acceptance. I receive far more positive than negative feedback about this in East Haven. During the last three elections anti gay groups have flooded East Haveners mailboxes and billboards with some pretty nasty stuff. Judging from people’s comments around here, it seemed to backfire. The bottom line is that East Haveners are live and let live, to each his own, folks. They are, and I am, much more interested in bread and butter issues when it comes to political advocacy issues. That being said, being able to play a leading role in the marriage equality discussion has been especially rewarding and proves once again that East Haven is the best town, and Connectict the best and most open minded state in the nation.
Rep. Lawlor,
You mentioned that you were on the sentencing commission and the risk assessment board. As part of the sentencing commission, what will you be looking at and what steps do you think the State should take to deal with prison overcrowding?
Also, good job on passing the compensation bill for James Tillman!
Thank you for your response but you forgot to mention that you just came out of the closet 2 week prior to last election. This was reported by the new haven register very close to last election. So not may of you constituents knew you were gay prior to last election. Where did you get the 50/50 number on gay marriage ?? my question is that now most of your constituents know you are gay do you think that will have an impact on your next election based on the fact you come from mostly a Irish/ Italian district. ?? Most people in connecticut do support civil unions but there is big difference between civil unions and gay marriage.
[quote comment="13593"]We heard for about a year and half about court openess. I found it to be a personal failure of the judicial committee of which you chair that not one single bill made it to the floor. Not one bill for court openess made it to the governor’s office. My question is to Michael Lawlor. After a year and half of you talking about court openess are you embarrassed that not one bill got passed?[/quote]
Yeah, its too bad we could not have gotten final action on our big judicial openness bill. There are several great stories about what happened, here is one:
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18489100&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=569380&rfi=8
It is still possible that we will be able to get something accomplished in a special session, but we will certainly pick up where we left off last year. Maybe even do a constitutional amendment. We did get some unexpected resistance from the Governor and Republicans at the last minute. The bills had passed unanimously in the committee, only to be met with near party line resistance in the senate [where they were voted on, by the way]. Then, the Governors office started to indicate that they could not support the bills either. Finally, a death penalty repeal amendment was filed on the bill in the House, assuring that there would be a very lenghty debate on the bill. That proved fatal in the closing hours of the session.
Mike, you seem to really enjoy your role chairing the Judiciary Committee, and you do a great job. If you were to move on to a different elected office, what office (or offices) interest you most?
It’s an understatement to say there are a lot of people around the state rooting for you to run for higher office.
I wanted to take a second here to give Rep. Mike Lawlor a HUGE thank you for being willing to come on and answer people’s questions in such a through and open fashion! Agree or disagree, this kind of interaction is absolutely fantastic.
[quote comment="13625"]I wanted to take a second here to give Rep. Mike Lawlor a HUGE thank you for being willing to come on and answer people’s questions in such a through and open fashion! Agree or disagree, this kind of interaction is absolutely fantastic.[/quote]
Agreed. This is the blogosphere at it’s best.
[quote comment="13613"]Hi, Mike!
You said:
.
The first 3 bills you list in this category (expanding Megan’s law, DNA evidence changes, and raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction) seem like they’d sail through both chambers. Can you expand on what happened that allowed these bills to die (or at least become dormant) by the end of the session?[/quote]
Hi, Maura,
The broad Megan’s Law bill [which contained the so-called "my space problem" fix -- the re written "social networking" bill] was passed in the House, but died on the calendar due to amendments filed on it that would have led to lengthy debate. This is not unusual, as legislators use whatever leverage they have to try to force consideration of their own priorities. Also, it is not unusual for bills to fail one year and pass the next.
Regarding the “Raise the Age” bill, that is a budget bill and it will be voted on this week or next in the special session.
[quote comment="13625"]I wanted to take a second here to give Rep. Mike Lawlor a HUGE thank you for being willing to come on and answer people’s questions in such a through and open fashion! Agree or disagree, this kind of interaction is absolutely fantastic.[/quote]
Agreed, it is remarkable that he is willing to join us, and answer these questions as thoroughly as he is. He deserves great credit.. don’t know many who would be willing to do so. We all appreciate it.
[quote comment="13624"]Mike, you seem to really enjoy your role chairing the Judiciary Committee, and you do a great job.
If you were to move on to a different elected office, what office (or offices) interest you most?
It’s an understatement to say there are a lot of people around the state rooting for you to run for higher office.[/quote]
Geez, thanks Maura!! Well I do love my jobs [both the legislature and teaching criminal justice at University of New Haven]. But, people have asked about the race for AG if Dick Blumenthal decides not to run. I would definitely consider it, but it IS three years away! Public financing changes the entire dynamic, so I guess I can decide what to do in two years. Our tradition in Connecticut is to have an activist AG fighting for the little guys against corruption and powerful businesses, so its the kind of thing I like and think Im good at. But, in the meantime, I dont want to be the kind of politician I always find myself criticizing: one who spends all his time thinking of how to get elected to “higher office”. I hope that answers your question. Not trying to be coy, just honest.
I agree I give rep Lawlor credit for anwering all these questions openly. It is great we can disagree but learn. Thanks
Interesting Rep. Lawlor never defended the cigarette tax increase.
But again can you answer my original question. Why do you think our acting AG Dick Blumenthal did not argue the biggest case in the history of connecticut himself? Why did he send someone else to argue the gay marriage case? What is you opinion?
>>I agree I give rep Lawlor credit for anwering all these questions openly
He didn’t.
He simply ignored those he didn’t wish to answer.
[quote comment="13629"][quote comment="13624"]Mike, you seem to really enjoy your role chairing the Judiciary Committee, and you do a great job.
If you were to move on to a different elected office, what office (or offices) interest you most?
It’s an understatement to say there are a lot of people around the state rooting for you to run for higher office.[/quote]
Geez, thanks Maura!! Well I do love my jobs [both the legislature and teaching criminal justice at University of New Haven]. But, people have asked about the race for AG if Dick Blumenthal decides not to run. I would definitely consider it, but it IS three years away! Public financing changes the entire dynamic, so I guess I can decide what to do in two years. Our tradition in Connecticut is to have an activist AG fighting for the little guys against corruption and powerful businesses, so its the kind of thing I like and think Im good at. But, in the meantime, I dont want to be the kind of politician I always find myself criticizing: one who spends all his time thinking of how to get elected to “higher office”. I hope that answers your question. Not trying to be coy, just honest.[/quote]
I know I’ve said this to you before (repeatedly), but I hope you decide to run. I personally can’t think of a better AG candidate.
And three years away is nothing in Political Junkie Time!
[quote comment="13622"]Thank you for your response but you forgot to mention that you just came out of the closet 2 week prior to last election. This was reported by the new haven register very close to last election. So not may of you constituents knew you were gay prior to last election. Where did you get the 50/50 number on gay marriage ?? my question is that now most of your constituents know you are gay do you think that will have an impact on your next election based on the fact you come from mostly a Irish/ Italian district. ?? Most people in connecticut do support civil unions but there is big difference between civil unions and gay marriage.[/quote]
Not sure how to respond to that. First, what the register thinks is news is their decision. I am gay, and they decided it was newsworthy before the election. But, it was pretty old news and, more to the point, no one seems to care. Second, the polling on marriage has be pretty consistent, the latest can be read here:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-marriagepoll0429.artapr29,0,7991062.story
and the recent Quinnipiac Poll can be read here:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1017
I must say that I am terribly happy (and impressed) that someone in our legislature takes the time to discuss politics and legislation with us in such a fashion.
Thanks to the fine folks who run this site, too. This is my first time participating, but (for better or worse) you can be sure I’ll be back
PS: Rep. Lawlor, I have a question pending
[quote comment="13632"]But again can you answer my original question. Why do you think our acting AG Dick Blumenthal did not argue the biggest case in the history of connecticut himself? Why did he send someone else to argue the gay marriage case? What is you opinion?[/quote]
Who knows? I really don’t.
You have advocated having a public list of Connecticut gun owners, and called gun rights advocates “paranoid” (Connecticut Post: 5/6/07) because they opposed this public list. You have reasoned that creating this public list helps create a “paper trail” when tracking down last-known owners of firearms involved in secondary sales.
Conversely, you you have supported the creation of a ’shadow registry’ of sex offenders which law enforcement has access to, and the public does not. In the case of a convicted sex offender in Bolton who molested a pre-school girl, you said keeping this sex offender off of the online sex offender registry helped protect the victim because the victim could possibly be identified by the listing of the criminal (Journal Inquirer: March 22, 2007).
My question is, why, in your opinion, does the public have the right to have a complete and public list of law-abiding firearm permit holders, but not a complete list of convicted criminal sex offenders that could pose a risk their children?
I agree with the quinnipiac poll. This show 61 % of connecticut citizens are opposed to legalizing gay marriage. That is about 6 out of 10. Not 50/50. But we can agree to disagree. I don’t think there is one thing wrong with being gay. Gay marriage is a different issue. Thankyou for the response and now about the AG? If you will. Thank you
Sorry you anwered the question on the AG. I would also point out any poll conducted by the hartford courant is a complete joke. One person can vote more than once. The poll numbers are laugable on the courant’s web site. The reporting is not much better. Unless you are liberal democrate the articles are made up of lies and half-truths at best. What do you think about the biased reporting on the hartford courants part?
[quote comment="13621"]Rep. Lawlor,
You mentioned that you were on the sentencing commission and the risk assessment board. As part of the sentencing commission, what will you be looking at and what steps do you think the State should take to deal with prison overcrowding?
Also, good job on passing the compensation bill for James Tillman![/quote]
Hey, sorry for missing this one. The Commission should have its own website up by now, and I will check into why its not available. In the meantime, check out the great, and recent, OPM reports on justice trends and stats in CT.
http://www.opm.state.ct.us/
[quote comment="13640"]Sorry you anwered the question on the AG. I would also point out any poll conducted by the hartford courant is a complete joke. One person can vote more than once. The poll numbers are laugable on the courant’s web site. The reporting is not much better. Unless you are liberal democrate the articles are made up of lies and half-truths at best. What do you think about the biased reporting on the hartford courants part?[/quote]
The poll was not conducted by the Courant. If you read the article, you’d see that the poll was conducted by UConn’s polling institute. People could not vote more than once.
sorry.
[quote comment="13641"][quote comment="13621"]Rep. Lawlor,
You mentioned that you were on the sentencing commission and the risk assessment board. As part of the sentencing commission, what will you be looking at and what steps do you think the State should take to deal with prison overcrowding?
Also, good job on passing the compensation bill for James Tillman![/quote]
Hey, sorry for missing this one. The Commission should have its own website up by now, and I will check into why its not available. In the meantime, check out the great, and recent, OPM reports on justice trends and stats in CT.
http://www.opm.state.ct.us//quote
Oh, thank you! I’ll be on the lookout for the Commission website.
As you can tell, I’m a crim law junkie
[quote comment="13638"]You have advocated having a public list of Connecticut gun owners, and called gun rights advocates “paranoid” (Connecticut Post: 5/6/07) because they opposed this public list. You have reasoned that creating this public list helps create a “paper trail” when tracking down last-known owners of firearms involved in secondary sales.
Conversely, you you have supported the creation of a ’shadow registry’ of sex offenders which law enforcement has access to, and the public does not. In the case of a convicted sex offender in Bolton who molested a pre-school girl, you said keeping this sex offender off of the online sex offender registry helped protect the victim because the victim could possibly be identified by the listing of the criminal (Journal Inquirer: March 22, 2007).
My question is, why, in your opinion, does the public have the right to have a complete and public list of law-abiding firearm permit holders, but not a complete list of convicted criminal sex offenders that could pose a risk their children?[/quote]
Not exactly. What happened was this information was public in the past. During negotiations regarding the 1994 bill that required all handguns sales to be subject to the same standards as gun dealer sales, we agreed to exempt the list from Freedom of Information requirements. I only pointed out that the main reason for this change at the time was that the list would be used to seize all guns which I do think is a bit of a stretch, in the black helicopter category. Regarding the on line sex offender registry, there is a provision where a victim can ask a judge to order that the offender’s identity not be online. We had a number of victim’s families ask for this after victims were identified through the registry. The typical situation is where a parent has molested a child. In one case, a girl who had been molested by her father at a young age was ostracized ten years later, as a high school student, after her father’s name address and photo was posted on the internet. In that family’s case, the father was arrested, convicted and sent to prison. But, the parents decided to keep the marriage together, the father had gone to counseling and the family was doing fine until the internet registry changed all that. After that, the girl was not invited to parties or social events, for fear that her father might somehow accompany her or be nearby. Im sure you can understand how that can and does victimize the victim a second time. So, we do allow for a victim to ask that the world not know the details and identity of the offender. This was supported by sexual assault victims groups and only makes sense to me.
I don’t know if the blog is over but if it is thanks again for comming on here and answering my questions rep Lawlor.
Oh, and I should point out that all conviction information, for everyone, will be on line soon at both the judicial and department of public safety websites. Everything from sex offenses to shoplifting will be there. I support full disclosure of criminal conviction information.
prudent,
The Q-poll also says that 72% support legal recognition for same sex relationships, whether in the form of civil unions or marriage. Not an anti-gay trend. Pretty extraordinary, when this issue was not even on the radar a few years ago. Most importantly, young people are strongly in favor of marriage, so support will only grow.
I think you’ll believe whatever you want to believe, but here’s a summary of all of the polls for the last few years. The trend is toward acceptance.
As to whether being gay or support of marriage equality hurts a candidate, the record suggests that pro-equality views help to ensure that a candidate will get elected.
[quote comment="13647"]Oh, and I should point out that all conviction information, for everyone, will be on line soon at both the judicial and department of public safety websites. Everything from sex offenses to shoplifting will be there. I support full disclosure of criminal conviction information.[/quote]
Unless the victim opposes it?
Thanks for the backup, MikeCT. I think your analysis is correct. Anyway, I’m outta here. I have to make some dinner. I will check back later to see if any more questions pop up.
I enjoyed this as always. I’ve been in the legislature for 21 years, but the last year has been the most interesting and, with the advent of the blog, the most interactive. Glad to be a part of it. Thanks for staying tuned!
Mike
Thank you for your time Representative Lawlor… much appreciated
[quote comment="13649"][quote comment="13647"]Oh, and I should point out that all conviction information, for everyone, will be on line soon at both the judicial and department of public safety websites. Everything from sex offenses to shoplifting will be there. I support full disclosure of criminal conviction information.[/quote]
Unless the victim opposes it?[/quote]
No. The list of all criminal conviction information is already available from the state police. This will now be online. Thats a bit different than the sex offender website, which contains a lot more information. If you want to check someone’s record, here is how to do it now.
HOW DO I REQUEST A CRIMINAL CONVICTION RECORD CHECK?
If you have a printer, print out a copy and fill in the requested information on the DPS-846-C Form “State Police Bureau of Identification Request”. Mail the form along with a check for $25.00 (A $25.00 fee is required for each subject requested).
DO NOT E-MAIL or FAX REQUESTS, U.S. MAIL ONLY
All requests for criminal history should be mailed to:
State Police Bureau of Identification
1111 Country Club Road
Middletown, CT 06457
(860) 685-8480
pdfsm.gif (155 bytes) Request for DPS-846-C Form
Request for DPS-846-C Form
Soon, it will be immediate and free….
I have one final question Rep Lawlor. If as you say the majority of people support gay relationships then why didn’t you let the people of connecticut vote on same sex marriage. If as you say the majority of people support same sex marriage.
[quote comment="13653"]I have one final question Rep Lawlor. If as you say the majority of people support gay relationships then why didn’t you let the people of connecticut vote on same sex marriage. If as you say the majority of people support same sex marriage.[/quote]
Well, I didnt say majority, I said 50/50. It’s the job of the legislature to sort these things out, considering all the arguments and taking the measure of public and constituent opinion. California, for example, tries to decide too many things by initiative and referendum, and gets all kinds of wild results. Im not sure we want to go that route here. We never have. Marriage equality will happen when its clear that there is a consensus behind it, just as was the case with civil unions. In the meantime, we will continue to have respectful debates about it at the capitol and at the dinner table. Thats how representative democracy is intended to work. I think its the right way to go.
oh, and by the way, it was not the Hartford Courant which conducted the poll. They reported it. It was conducted by Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut, part of the Roper Center. You can judge their credentials, track record and fairness here:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/about_roper.html
I am well aware how represenative democracy is suppose to work. I am also aware now by 2 people who conducted the poll and the center for survey research and analysis at the univeristy of connecticut credibility was never questioned by myself. I don’t however feel that letting the people vote on an issue that will affect the citizens of connecticut untill the end of time is a terrible idea. I think this issue has been debated in vien because our legislature did not vote on the bill after many debates. In my opinion, this was done because you did not feel you had the votes to support gay marriage. It is that simple. We debated and then no vote. Then when you did not have the votes you pulled the bill in hopes the supreme court would vote in favor of gay marriage. This is exactly what happened. You did not vote so it is time to let the citizens of connecticut vote on this issue. This is not california.
Hi Rep. Lawlor –
In case you check back at some point, thanks for joining us and answering all of the questions – I’m sorry I had to miss it!
Gabe
[quote comment="13618"]>>In the months to come we may be hosting informational public hearings regarding issues like ⌠possible pardons for âwitchesâ executed in Connecticut in the late 17th Century
You know, I just have to ask about this one from your opening postâŚ
Iâm sure this is an important legislative priority⌠the last of these âwitchesâ was hanged in 1662. What kind of evidence will you be using to overturn the verdicts? I mean any witnesses still alive would have to be witches or warlocks. And then weâd have to execute them. Could get very messy.
[/quote]
Sorry, missed this one. Heres some interesting info about our history and what the Massachusetts and Virginia legislatures did recently:
December 18, 2006
2006-R-0718
CONNECTICUT WITCH TRIALS AND POSTHUMOUS PARDONS
By: Sandra Norman-Eady, Chief Attorney
Jennifer Bernier, Librarian
You asked a series of questions about Connecticut’s witch trials, including whether any witches have been pardoned posthumously. You also wanted to know if any other state has granted a witch a posthumous pardon. We answer each question separately below based on records and accounts of local historians. We relied primarily on works by John M. Taylor, author of The Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut 1647-1697; Connecticut historian Walter W. Woodard, author of soon to be published Prosperos America: John Winthrop, Jr. , Alchemy and the Creation of New England Culture 1606-1676; and John Putman Demos, author of Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England.
What is the Origin of the Crime of âWitchcraft?â
The crime of witchcraft was included in laws enacted by the parliament of England during Queen Elizabeth I’s reign (1558-1603). Witchcraft and its penalty were thought to be the express law of God as stated in Exodus 22: 18 (âThou shalt not suffer a witch to liveâ), Leviticus 20: 27 (âA man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon themâ), and Deuteronomy 18: 10 (âThere shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witchâ (quotes from the Holy Bible, King James Version).
In each of the New England colonies, witchcraft was a capital crime that involved having some type of relationship with or entertaining Satan. The earliest laws of Connecticut and New Haven colonies, the Blue Laws, make it a capital offense for âany man or woman [to] bee a Witch, that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit, they shall bee put to death. â Although the witchcraft crimes did not require any harm to result from this relationship or entertainment, in practice there had to be harm that warranted the effort and expense of a formal proceeding. In addition to a formal witchcraft charge, allegations of witchcraft were often the bases for civil suits for slander.
When were Connecticut’s Witch Trials Held and What Gave Rise to Them?
Connecticut’s witch trials were held in the mid to late 1600’s, between 1647 and 1697. However, no alleged witches were executed after 1662. Although historians cannot say with absolute certainty what gave rise to the witch trials, many believe that fear was the primary caused. The colonists held strong religious beliefs and years of fighting Native Americans, floods, and epidemical sickness may have caused them to look for someone (Satan) to blame for their hardships.
Describe the Legal Proceedings
Although all proceedings appeared to have been documented, many of the trial records no longer exist. Of those that survive, historians have discovered that a formal complaint started the process. Following the complaint, local magistrates would collect evidence, usually consisting of depositions from witnesses and an examination of the accused. A single witness was all it took to support a witchcraft conviction prior to 1662. Beginning that year, Connecticut required simultaneous witnessing of the same incident by two or more people.
Once gathered, the information was forwarded to higher courts authorized to try capital cases. The high court would refer the cases to a grand jury for indictment. Full consideration was given to the written evidence and, where possible, there was a personal reaffirmation of the testimony by the deponents. If indicted, cases went to a jury trial. The governor’s assistant served as prosecutor and as such he shaped the jury’s understanding of the case. The prosecutor and the accused called witnesses (it is unclear whether the accused were represented by counsel). Once all of the evidence was presented, the jury delivered its verdict and the magistrate (the governor) imposed sentence. If the jury returned a verdict with which the magistrate disagreed, he could overturn it.
Did the Equivalent of Today’s General Assembly Have Any Role in the Trials?
No, the then-General Court did not have a role in the trials.
Names of People Tried as Witches and Case Outcomes
Many court records have been lost or destroyed; thus, there are varying accounts of the number of witch trials in Connecticut. Table 1 shows the names of people who were accused of witchcraft as reported by John Putman Demos in his book Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England. If they were tried as witches, the table shows the years the trials were held and outcomes where known. The table includes cases of slander brought by suspected witches. If the suspected witches did not go to trial, the table also shows those (1) accused, which includes cases for which there is evidence of witchcraft accusation or suspicion but no record of any court action, or (2) indicted, which means they appeared in court before trial.
Table 1: People Accused Of Witchcraft In Connecticut
People Accused of Witchcraft
Accusation Date and Place
Verdict or Sentence
Alice Young
1647 Windsor
Hanged
Mary Johnson
1648 Wethersfield
Pressured into a confession and probably executed
John and Joan Carrington
1651 Wethersfield
Guilty, executed
Goodwife Bassett
1651 Fairfield
Convicted and hung
Goodwife Knapp
1653 Fairfield
Convicted and hung
Elizabeth Goodman
1653 and 1655 New Haven
Charged with Slander in 1653. In 1655, acquitted of witchcraft and released with a reprimand and warning.
Mary Staples
1654 New Haven
Slander
Lydia Gilbert
1654 Windsor
Probably executed
Nicholas Bailey & wife
1655
Acquitted and banished
William Meaker
1657 New Haven
Slander
Elizabeth Garlick
1658 Easthampton*
Acquitted
Katherine Palmer
1660 and 1672
Slander
Nicholas & Margaret Jennings
1661 Saybrook
Acquitted
Judith Varlet
1662-63 Hartford
Probably acquitted
Goody Ayres
1662 Hartford
Fled the colony with her husband, who also appears to have been accused
Rebecca Greensmith
1662 Hartford
Hanged
Nathanial Greensmith
1662 Hartford
Hanged
Mary Sanford
1662 Hartford
Probably hanged
Andrew Sanford
1662 Hartford
Acquitted
Mary Barnes
1662-3 Farmington
Hanged
Elizabeth and John Blackleach
1662-3 Wethersfield
Complaint filed
James Wakeley
1662 and 1665 Hartford
Fled both times
Elizabeth Seager
1663 Hartford
Tried twice and acquitted both times
Mary Hall
1664 Setauket*
Indicted
Elizabeth Seager
1665 Hartford
Convicted, however the governor reversed the verdict
Ralph and Mary Hall
1664 Setauket*
Acquitted
Hannah Griswold
1667 Saybrook
Slander
William Graves
1667 Stamford
Complaint filed, probably indicted
Katherine Harrison
1669 Wethersfield
Guilty, however verdict was overturned and Harrison left Connecticut
Goody Messenger
1673 Windsor
Slander
Goody Burr
1678 Wethersfield
Slander
Goody Bowden
1689 New Haven
Slander
Mercy Disborough
1692 Fairfield
Subjected to the water test** and later convicted and sentenced to death, however given a reprieve by the General Assembly
Elizabeth Clawson
1692 Stamford
Subjected to the water test** and acquitted
Mary Staples
1692 Fairfield
Indicted
Mary Harvey
1692 Fairfield
Indicted
Hannah Harvey
1692 Fairfield
Indicted
Goody Miller
1692 Fairfield
Accusation
Winifred Benham
1692 Wallingford
Indicted
Hugh Croasia
1692 Stratford
Indicted
Winifred Benham
1697 Wallingford
Acquitted
* This town in Long Island, which today belongs to New York, was initially within the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Colony.
** Suspected witches were sometimes dropped into a body of water to determine if they possessed evil spirits. The theory behind the so-called âducking testâ was that if the person sank she was innocent but if she floated she was guilty because the pure water cast out her evil spirit.
Has Connecticut’s Board of Pardons and Paroles Ever Granted a Pardon, Posthumously?
No. According to the board, there is no procedure for granting such a pardon.
Has any Other State Granted a Posthumous Pardon?
It appears that two states (Massachusetts and Virginia) have granted witches posthumous pardons. On October 17, 1711, the governor and General Court reversed the conviction against several people tried as witches in 1692 and ordered restitution. Years later, on August 28, 1957, the General Court of Massachusetts issued a resolution (attached) (1) finding that Ann Pudeator and others executed for witchcraft in 1692 may have been illegally tried, convicted, and sentenced; (2) declaring its belief that witchcraft trials were shocking and the result of a wave of popular hysterical fear of the Devil in the community; and (3) declaring that the resolution did not (a) bestow rights that did not exist before its passage, (b) authorize any suits or deprive anyone of a suit or defense that existed before its passage, (c) alter property rights, or (d) require or permit the remission of any imposed penalty, fine, or forfeiture.
On October 1, 2001, the Massachusetts legislature amended the 1957 resolution by adding the names of the five other people executed for witchcraft in 1692. Those added were Bridget Bishop, Susannah Martin, Alice Parker, Margaret Scott, and Wilmot Redd. We have attached a copy of the amendment.
On July 10, 2006, the governor of Virginia granted an informal or ceremonial pardon to Grace Sherwood, who 300 years ago became the only person in that state convicted as a witch tried by water. The pardon, which restored Sherwood’s good name, was in the form of a letter to the mayor of Virginia Beach, the site of the water trial.
In addition to the two states, one town has posthumously exonerated a witch. In 1938, the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire, by resolution (attached), exonerated the one person in the town who had been accused of witchcraft. The town declared its belief that Eunice (Goody) Cole was unjustly accused of witchcraft and familiarity with the devil in the 17th century. It restored her rightful place as a citizen of the town and ordered the selectmen to burn certified copies of all official documents relating to the false accusations.
Although New York has not posthumously pardoned witches, the state recently (2003) pardoned Comedian Lenny Bruce, who was convicted of giving an obscene performance in 1964 during a Greenwich Village performance. Bruce died of a drug overdose two years later.
SN-E: ro
[/quote][/quote]
Test 1
test 2
I had to leave for a meeting before my questions were answered, so I just wanted to stop back in and thank CGG for hosting the live-blog and Mike for answering questions so thoroughly, thoughtfully, and frankly.
My favorite answer was:
Who knows? I really donât.
It’s delightfully refreshing to hear that from a political leader.
According to HH, Rep. Lawlor supports making it a crime if my gun is stolen, then wants to make public the fact that I own a gun. May as well pass out MapQuest maps to all the criminals who want to obtain weapons.
Real smart sir!
[quote comment="13666"]According to HH, Rep. Lawlor supports making it a crime if my gun is stolen, then wants to make public the fact that I own a gun. May as well pass out MapQuest maps to all the criminals who want to obtain weapons.
Real smart sir![/quote]
Here’s a thought. Instead of being snarky for no reason, how about asking an actual question?
[quote comment="13667"][quote comment="13666"]According to HH, Rep. Lawlor supports making it a crime if my gun is stolen, then wants to make public the fact that I own a gun. May as well pass out MapQuest maps to all the criminals who want to obtain weapons.
Real smart sir![/quote]
Here’s a thought. Instead of being snarky for no reason, how about asking an actual question?[/quote]
Here’s a thought. I’ll say what I want, when I want, even if it doesn’t tickle your political fancy. I didn’t break any rules, so bug off.
[quote post="656"]Hereâs a thought. Iâll say what I want, when I want, even if it doesnât tickle your political fancy. I didnât break any rules, so bug off.[/quote]
Actually an argument could be made that you’re trolling.
Why not try and add something productive to the discussion? What exactly do you get out of constantly making hostile comments?
[quote comment="13669"][quote post="656"]Hereâs a thought. Iâll say what I want, when I want, even if it doesnât tickle your political fancy. I didnât break any rules, so bug off.[/quote]
Actually an argument could be made that you’re trolling.
Why not try and add something productive to the discussion? What exactly do you get out of constantly making hostile comments?[/quote]
Go make your argument then. Have my comment deleted.
I posted that making a list of gun owners was not a good idea. You call that trolling? You’re whacked.
[quote post="656"]I posted that making a list of gun owners was not a good idea. You call that trolling? Youâre whacked.[/quote]
It’s how you say it.
[quote comment="13671"][quote post="656"]I posted that making a list of gun owners was not a good idea. You call that trolling? Youâre whacked.[/quote]
It’s how you say it.[/quote]
Are you going to censor me or not?
What’s the charge?
Lack of style? Offending CCG’s sensibilities?
[quote post="656"]Are you going to censor me or not?
Whatâs the charge?
Lack of style? Offending CCGâs sensibilities?[/quote]
No charge, and no plans to delete the comment. I just wish you were half as interested in adding to the discussion as you are with pot shots and snark.
Off to bed now. Perhaps we can continue this via email or an open forum.
[quote comment="13673"][quote post="656"]Are you going to censor me or not?
Whatâs the charge?
Lack of style? Offending CCGâs sensibilities?[/quote]
No charge, and no plans to delete the comment. I just wish you were half as interested in adding to the discussion as you are with pot shots and snark.
Off to bed now. Perhaps we can continue this via email or an open forum.[/quote]
I’m sorry I don’t live up to your expectations of me.
I’ll pass on the continuing of the discussion… since nothing will come of it.
[quote comment="13666"]According to HH, Rep. Lawlor supports making it a crime if my gun is stolen, then wants to make public the fact that I own a gun. May as well pass out MapQuest maps to all the criminals who want to obtain weapons.
Real smart sir![/quote]
So Architect, you suggest that if someone wants to sell/give a licensed firearm to a criminial, — and then that gun is used in a murder, — all that former gun owner has to say is that “it was stolen”?!
Look, I have no problem with respectable people owning guns. But no one should be granted a pseudo-legal amnesty if they give/sell said gun to a CRIMINAL. (because by your logic, the former gun-owner shouldn’t be required to report the sale/loss.)
Tell me, why do I think the police unions would back Representative Lawlor and his position? Could it be they don’t want felons to easily obtain gun from friends and family members?
Which side are you on Architect? The NRA ideologues, or our front-line police? Anything to score a quick vote???
[quote comment="13676"]Tell me, why do I think the police unions would back Representative Lawlor and his position? Could it be they don’t want felons to easily obtain gun from friends and family members?[/quote]
Actually, I believe the whole idea for the bill was proposed by the police.
[quote comment="13666"]According to HH, Rep. Lawlor supports making it a crime if my gun is stolen, then wants to make public the fact that I own a gun. May as well pass out MapQuest maps to all the criminals who want to obtain weapons.
Real smart sir![/quote]
Uhhh… It has been the law for decades that it is a crime if a gun (or anything you own) is stolen. Do you want people stealing your gun?
[quote comment="13679"][quote comment="13676"]Tell me, why do I think the police unions would back Representative Lawlor and his position? Could it be they don’t want felons to easily obtain gun from friends and family members?[/quote]
Actually, I believe the whole idea for the bill was proposed by the police.[/quote]
The issue I objected to was that Lawlor, as I understand it, advocated creating a public data base available to anyone as to who has a pistol permit. That, in my opinion, is bad policy. I wanted to know why he didn’t care about the right to privacy of law abiding gun permit owners, but conversely seemed to be advocating privacy for certain sex offenders, having supported the ’shadow registry.’
The other interesting thing about this is, only law enforcement can use the permit list to track secondary weapons purchases, so what’s the public good being achieved through a public list? The online Sex Offender Registry is meant to be used by parents to help protect their children, so their is a public good served by a public list.
I think it demonstrates priorities that are 180 degrees out of phase.
[quote comment="13681"][quote comment="13679"][quote comment="13676"]Tell me, why do I think the police unions would back Representative Lawlor and his position? Could it be they don’t want felons to easily obtain gun from friends and family members?[/quote]
Actually, I believe the whole idea for the bill was proposed by the police.[/quote]
The issue I objected to was that Lawlor, as I understand it, advocated creating a public data base available to anyone as to who has a pistol permit. That, in my opinion, is bad policy. I wanted to know why he didn’t care about the right to privacy of law abiding gun permit owners, but conversely seemed to be advocating privacy for certain sex offenders, having supported the ’shadow registry.’
The other interesting thing about this is, only law enforcement can use the permit list to track secondary weapons purchases, so what’s the public good being achieved through a public list? The online Sex Offender Registry is meant to be used by parents to help protect their children, so their is a public good served by a public list.
I think it demonstrates priorities that are 180 degrees out of phase.[/quote]
No, thats not quite it. The longstanding law, prior to 1994, was that the list of pistol permit holders was public information. During the 1994 gun debate, there was effort to exempt the permit info from the FOI law, and that effort was successful. I voted in favor of that. Recently I was asked why that happened, and I explained why. It happened in the give and take of the legislative process. I also said that I had no problem with the exemption being eliminated [though I have have not proposed such a change] because I think the reasons for it [the exemption] were not well founded. People can disagree about that.
As to your second point: “so whatâs the public good being achieved through a public list? The online Sex Offender Registry is meant to be used by parents to help protect their children, so their is a public good served by a public list.” is interesting. But, I would point out, many parents, including my two brothers and their wives, have mentioned to me that they would like to know which of their childrens’ parents have guns in the house because that would affect their decision on whether to allow their children, my neices and nephews, to be inside that house or stay over night. That seems like a reasonable concern to me and I think they should have the ability to find out. Also, journalists have mentioned that they would like to be able to monitor the decision making process by state and local police as to who gets pistol permits and who doesnt, to insure fairness and to guard against guns being carried by irresponsible persons, who might happen to be friends with the local police chief, etc. That also sounds reasonable to me. Anyway, there is no current proposal to change the law, and we shall see what happens.
[quote comment="13681"]The issue I objected to was that Lawlor, as I understand it, advocated creating a public data base available to anyone as to who has a pistol permit. That, in my opinion, is bad policy. I wanted to know why he didn’t care about the right to privacy of law abiding gun permit owners, but conversely seemed to be advocating privacy for certain sex offenders, having supported the ’shadow registry.’[/quote]
As he explained, it’s not for the privacy of the sex offenders. It’s for the privacy of the victims, who as he explained were often abused by their parents.
[quote comment="13683"][quote comment="13681"]The issue I objected to was that Lawlor, as I understand it, advocated creating a public data base available to anyone as to who has a pistol permit. That, in my opinion, is bad policy. I wanted to know why he didn’t care about the right to privacy of law abiding gun permit owners, but conversely seemed to be advocating privacy for certain sex offenders, having supported the ’shadow registry.’[/quote]
As he explained, it’s not for the privacy of the sex offenders. It’s for the privacy of the victims, who as he explained were often abused by their parents.[/quote]
The list isn’t for the victims. It’s for parents who want to protect their children. I don’t believe in a division of two registries. Either you have an effective tool for parents, or you don’t. If it isn’t complete, you don’t have it.
I will so this, I do commend Rep. Lawlor for working to see that improvements are made to the registry to give greater detail to registry, which will certainly help those parents.
>>many parents, including my two brothers and their wives, have mentioned to me that they would like to know which of their childrensâ parents have guns in the house because that would affect their decision on whether to allow their children, my neices and nephews, to be inside that house or stay over night. That seems like a reasonable concern to me and I think they should have the ability to find out.
I think a better approach might be for your brothers and their wives to actually communicate with the parents of children their children might be spending the night over with. They can say “Do you own a firearm in your home? Is it secured?” If you can’t ask those questions, or you don’t trust those parents, perhaps they should rethink letting their kids stay over. They don’t need some government maintained public list to review who are the firearm owners and who aren’t.
Their children could just as easily drown in a swimming pool, or get injured with a lawnmower. Should we have state pool and lawnmower registries too?
A concern like that can be addressed through communication, not a big brother list.
BTW Rep. Lawlor,
Thanks for coming back and answering more. That’s pretty admirable, and I do appreciate it.
[quote comment="13676"]So Architect, you suggest that if someone wants to sell/give a licensed firearm to a criminial, — and then that gun is used in a murder, — all that former gun owner has to say is that “it was stolen”?!
Look, I have no problem with respectable people owning guns. But no one should be granted a pseudo-legal amnesty if they give/sell said gun to a CRIMINAL. (because by your logic, the former gun-owner shouldn’t be required to report the sale/loss.)[/quote]
There you go again, baiting and trolling, trying to change the subject. I said absolutely nothing about anyone selling guns illegally in my post. I never said someone shouldn’t be required to report a gun lost or stolen either.
You need to improve your reading comprehension son.
[quote comment="13680"][quote comment="13666"]According to HH, Rep. Lawlor supports making it a crime if my gun is stolen, then wants to make public the fact that I own a gun. May as well pass out MapQuest maps to all the criminals who want to obtain weapons.
Real smart sir![/quote]
Uhhh… It has been the law for decades that it is a crime if a gun (or anything you own) is stolen. Do you want people stealing your gun?[/quote]
LOL you need to read up before opening your mouth big guy. Context clues are critical.
[quote comment="13695"][quote comment="13680"][quote comment="13666"]According to HH, Rep. Lawlor supports making it a crime if my gun is stolen, then wants to make public the fact that I own a gun. May as well pass out MapQuest maps to all the criminals who want to obtain weapons.
Real smart sir![/quote]
Uhhh… It has been the law for decades that it is a crime if a gun (or anything you own) is stolen. Do you want people stealing your gun?[/quote]
LOL you need to read up before opening your mouth big guy. Context clues are critical.[/quote]
Hey, I was just responding to what you posted. I did know what you meant. I was poking fun at the fact that you incorrectly stated something.
[quote comment="13699"][quote comment="13695"][quote comment="13680"][quote comment="13666"]According to HH, Rep. Lawlor supports making it a crime if my gun is stolen, then wants to make public the fact that I own a gun. May as well pass out MapQuest maps to all the criminals who want to obtain weapons.
Real smart sir![/quote]
Uhhh… It has been the law for decades that it is a crime if a gun (or anything you own) is stolen. Do you want people stealing your gun?[/quote]
LOL you need to read up before opening your mouth big guy. Context clues are critical.[/quote]
Hey, I was just responding to what you posted. I did know what you meant. I was poking fun at the fact that you incorrectly stated something.[/quote]
I love when people say this – you’re like the guy who says “Oh, yea I was going to say that” when someone else says something first that you didn’t think of but want to take credit for anyways.
[quote comment="13676"]Which side are you on Architect? The NRA ideologues, or our front-line police? Anything to score a quick vote???[/quote]
A comment like this coming from someone who would say something like the following: “I don’t have to support the troops just because they’re at war.”
What a shame.
[quote comment="13681"]The issue I objected to was that Lawlor, as I understand it, advocated creating a public data base available to anyone as to who has a pistol permit. That, in my opinion, is bad policy. I wanted to know why he didn’t care about the right to privacy of law abiding gun permit owners, but conversely seemed to be advocating privacy for certain sex offenders, having supported the ’shadow registry.’
The other interesting thing about this is, only law enforcement can use the permit list to track secondary weapons purchases, so what’s the public good being achieved through a public list? The online Sex Offender Registry is meant to be used by parents to help protect their children, so their is a public good served by a public list.
I think it demonstrates priorities that are 180 degrees out of phase.[/quote]
I would not be surprised if the true intent of publicizing the list would be to discourage people from obtaining permits to carry.
The local police already have a fine process in place to harass anyone who applies, at least in my hometown, including waiting the maximum length of time legally possible before they hand over your permit.
The funny part is that if a permit holder even, by accident, displays even a sliver of his weapon, they can be arrested for breach of peace. But now the government will just tell everyone who is carrying weapons instead. Maybe the Courant could even publish the list in the paper, like other papers have done. What the reasoning behind that is, I have absolutely no idea.
[quote comment="13701"][quote comment="13699"][quote comment="13695"][quote comment="13680"][quote comment="13666"]According to HH, Rep. Lawlor supports making it a crime if my gun is stolen, then wants to make public the fact that I own a gun. May as well pass out MapQuest maps to all the criminals who want to obtain weapons.
Real smart sir![/quote]
Uhhh… It has been the law for decades that it is a crime if a gun (or anything you own) is stolen. Do you want people stealing your gun?[/quote]
LOL you need to read up before opening your mouth big guy. Context clues are critical.[/quote]
Hey, I was just responding to what you posted. I did know what you meant. I was poking fun at the fact that you incorrectly stated something.[/quote]
I love when people say this – you’re like the guy who says “Oh, yea I was going to say that” when someone else says something first that you didn’t think of but want to take credit for anyways.[/quote]
LOL. No. I did know what you meant. I have followed the lost and stolen firearm bill extensively (By the way, the governor has signed it into law). I was just making fun of you. Evidently, you don’t get sarcasm.
[quote comment="13710"]LOL. No. I did know what you meant. I have followed the lost and stolen firearm bill extensively (By the way, the governor has signed it into law). I was just making fun of you. Evidently, you don’t get sarcasm.[/quote]
1. No insulting or belittling other posters.
Can we get a moderator in here?
Oh wait, I’m a Republican, so I can be made fun of without consequence. My bad. Continue on minions.
You must log in to post a comment.