Lamont’s risky move to take away guns
After being humbled by his failed attempt to revive tolls soon after his election in 2018, Gov. Ned Lamont took more measured approaches in subsequent initiatives. He tends to look both ways before crossing. Is New York doing something like this? How about Massachusetts? We’ll even consider your approach, Jersey.
So, it is something of a surprise that Lamont walks alone in suggesting Connecticut should change course on grandfathering in AR-15s and military style weapons that were banned in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy.
The 10th anniversary of the shooting at an elementary school has understandably inspired reconsideration of progress made toward gun safety. As progressive as Connecticut was under former Gov. Dannel Malloy in toughening such laws, Lamont seems to think an opportunity was missed.
“I think it’s a loophole that makes our society here in Connecticut a little less safe,” he said.
Any such flip in a law would be a challenge, but the notion of opting to seize guns is so daunting that Lamont has drawn no real support, even from traditional Democratic allies.
Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, told the Connecticut Mirror that he doesn’t see support in the General Assembly.
State Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, was even more blunt, telling The Day that “We made a promise to people, we need to maintain that promise.” And that’s from someone who opposed the law in the first place.
Even gun control advocacy groups recognize it as being too aspirational.
That doesn’t mean any of them wouldn’t prefer to see such firearms gone from public use.
Lamont has learned to read the tea leaves himself in the last four years, but also commented that “If I don’t try now, who will try?”
Let’s not be too quick to malign Lamont for acting on emotion, as gun lobbyists have done. Democratic leaders voice fear that his initiative would distract from progress in getting more ghost guns and handguns off the streets.
But revisiting the same issues year after year for the past decade hasn’t sparked enough change. Lamont could draw more attention to the cause by being more brazen. If nothing else, that might nudge the needle. It could inspire more success in buyback programs and the like.
The president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, which represents gun owners, offers the counterpoint that criminal use of weapons that were grandfathered in has been rare. “Rare,” though, is not the same as “never.”
House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, dismissed Lamont’s pitch over the financial toll it would take to reimburse owners for their AR-15s. That’s hardly persuasive that we wouldn’t be better off without them. Collectively, there are too many roadblocks for Lamont. Notably, he didn’t mention confiscation in a news release last week about Sandy Hook and gun laws. But he is managing to force lawmakers to consider their own accountability when it comes to gun safety.
Gov. Lamont looked both ways, saw no support and took a bold step forward anyway. Sometimes leadership requires taking risks.
Any such flip in a law would be a challenge, but the notion of opting to seize guns is so daunting that Lamont has drawn no real support, even from traditional Democratic allies.