.

Biden's Policy Recommendations Coming Tuesday

The Vice President has been meeting with parties on both sides of the gun control debate, as well as mental health advocates, as he crafts proposals in response to the Dec. 14 Newtown school shooting. And the NRA responds.

Vice President Joe Biden is expected to announce sweeping policy changes to gun laws and mental health care on Tuesday — two weeks earlier than expected.

The recommendations, at the request of President Barack Obama, are a response to the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that claimed the life of 20 first-graders and six educators.

According to a report by the Huffington Post, Biden's proposals are likely to address the availability and access to certain types of guns and ammunition and tackle the issue of data collection and background checks.

While Connecticut State Police continue their investigation into the Newtown shooting, authorities have identified a 20-year-old man, Adam Lanza, as the shooter. Police said Lanza, who reportedly had some mental health issues and/or social disorder, killed his mother, Nancy, at their Newtown home before shooting his way into the nearby school.

Lanza, who was armed with an assault rifle, among other guns — all legally owned by his mother — ultimately took his own life, police said.

Biden's Remarks, NRA Responds

Biden announced Thursday — a day that saw another school shooting — that he would deliver his proposal on Tuesday, Jan. 15. In his address to the press corps, the Huffington Post quoted him as saying:

"So far [there has been] a surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks. Not just closing the gun show loophole, but have total universal background checks including in private sales."

A blog on the vice president's website reports that, in coming up with his proposals, Biden has met and talked with elected officials at all levels of government, wildlife and sporting groups, gun control advocates and gun rights proponents, including the National Rifle Association (NRA).

In response to Thursday's announcement by the vice president, the NRA released a statement that said, in part:

"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners — honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans." 

"It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems," the statement continued. "We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works — and what does not."

COSMO P January 13, 2013 at 03:33 PM
Just read the Danbury news times column by ART CUMMINGS. He is screaming about implementing strict gun regulations. Funny from a guy that was driving drunk and got ARRESTED!!
Siwanoy January 13, 2013 at 03:55 PM
So if you have a DUI you shouldn't be allowed to express your opinion? Interesting.
sebastian dangerfield January 13, 2013 at 07:22 PM
i bet if he was pro-gun, cosmo would consider his position to be serious. I just checked the NRA board . Among them is Larry Craig. Arrested for lewd behavior (he was the toe tapper looking for homo sex in an airport bathroom). Cosmo, you want to tell us something?
COSMO P January 13, 2013 at 07:35 PM
No it is about breaking laws. Lets see drunk drivers kill more people than any gun deaths PERIOD. So lets see the shooter in Newtown broke how many laws. No if you get a DWI that means you are breaking the law. And you are part of the problem of the people that kill people. You know drunk drivers kill people not cars. You LIBERALS BEAT ALL!
COSMO P January 13, 2013 at 08:22 PM
Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2012. Drunk driving costs the United States $132 billion a year. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2010
Concerned Parent & Gun Owner January 14, 2013 at 03:17 AM
Then let's take all the cars away so no one can drive drunk. As a drunk driver control advocate, I see every driver as a drunk driving accident just waiting to happen. Thus, my thoughtful solution is that we take away all the cars even though only a small number of actual drivers drive drunk. It is fool proof! Wait, motorcycles? Take them away too. Scooters? Well take them away. Bicycles? Crud, those too. OK, now we are safe because we have taken away all modes of wheeled travel except very safe roller blades and skate boards. What, someone can get hurt using those drunk? OK, take them all away and outlaw the use of any wheeled vehicle by anyone other than the government going forward. Now it is fool proof. Fool proof, just like taking away all the assault weapons is going to stop mass murders in the future. It won't and then they will come for the shotguns and lever action rifles and bolt action rifles and then crossbows - where will it stop? Regarding handguns, of course limiting mags to less than 10-rounds is going to stop mass murder by handgun. Except that a gun that uses 9-round mags is just as lethal as one that takes "high capacity magazines". So then they will take away all magazine-fed semi-auto pistols. Until the next massacre executed with a revolver and speed loaders which will then be taken. So eventually, State Senator Meyers will get his way and we will be left with single shot pistols. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00122-R00-SB.htm
Ali Abdulah January 14, 2013 at 03:23 AM
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/patriotic-group-build-armed-defensible-neighborhood-fortress Here's a place where all you off-the -wall gun dudes can feel at home, before you start shooting each other...
Concerned Parent & Gun Owner January 14, 2013 at 03:26 AM
Dude! Idaho? I would rather defend my home with Senator Meyer's required single shot pistol than live in Idaho, with a bunch of over-armed preppers.
COSMO P January 14, 2013 at 12:08 PM
Alphonso II Sounds good my friend now how about you living in Detroit Indiana DC or Newark for a while. Bet they would love your narrow ###
sebastian dangerfield January 14, 2013 at 04:14 PM
concerned parent and gun owner The thing with people like you-is you are not cognizant of the absurdity of your post. You say, tongue in cheek, "lets take away all the cars."-in an effort to ridicule those who feel that guns are too accessible and to people who should not be allowed to own a gun. (my point is you want to laugh at gun control advocates, while offering up a totally absurd analogy.) But lets expand on your bullshit. Ok? You say that you see every driver as a drunk waiting to happen. Ok -that's extreme. That would be like saying that the solutions desired by gun control people is to take away every single gun. THat is not what is occuring. Let's return to your car analogy. IN order to legally drive a car, you need to be a certain age. Pass a police officer monitored competency test. There are police everywhere monitoring your driving habits. And issuing infractions or worse for any deviation in understood responsible automobile operation. There are keys to cars-there is car insurance that cost thousands of dollars each year to cover both colliision and any harm you may cause others. If you drive drunk-you lose your license for a minimum of 1 year etc. So--there are laws put in place to limit the accidents--and they are enforced. You dont have to be in an accident to get thrown in jail for drunk driving. Maybe we should put some competency tests and monitor every gun owner? Last= cars are for utilitarian purposes-not to kill.
sebastian dangerfield January 14, 2013 at 04:19 PM
thats right-- People die because of idiots who drive drunk. 35 people die a day because of guns.... if 27 is bad-what is 35? I say we try to address both. What do you think cosmo? Or is 35 people dead a day not something you want to acknowledge?
Concerned Parent & Gun Owner January 14, 2013 at 04:46 PM
Sebastian - I appreciate your passion and maybe I was too flippant. Apologies on raising your BP. First, any number of deaths by other than natural means is undesirable. Of the daily number you quote, how many are suicides? How many involve a firearm which can not accept a high capacity magazine (ie revolvers, small pistols)? Having those numbers is critical to this discussion. If you say you don't care, then you are not someone discussing in good faith. Second, is the proposed mag capacity limit meant to prevent fun deaths generally? Street gun deaths where criminal activity is involved? Suicides? Or mass murder? Suicides are, by necessity, largely single shot deaths when successful. This, no mag limit is going to have an impact on this number. Statistically, the average non-suicide gun death involves a shooting where three bullets or less were fired, by all the parties involved. Just three. Thus, limited mags are going to have little impact if the number of rounds expended is less than the mag's capacity, irrespective of whether that is 10, 17 or 30. And the there are those holding guns who have no interest in the laws. As Ron from CAGV said in Wilton last week, 80% of hand gun crimes involve those disqualified from legally owning a gun. So how does a mag capacity limit impact such shootings involving the lawless? As for mass murders, check details of the Oikos University shooting last April with 8 dead. Legal mags in a state with a limit. Efficacy?
Siwanoy January 14, 2013 at 05:51 PM
"So how does a mag capacity limit impact such shootings involving the lawless?" the less you have item "A" the harder it is to get item "A" All guns/mags are created legally, a certain % of them will become illegally owned. If there are less (notice how I didn't say NONE) guns/mags being created there would then be less illegally owned guns/mags. Stop arguing about how an all out gun ban would leave guns in just the criminal hands, we're not arguing for an all out gun ban. Once you stop inventing things to argue against, the discussion can move forward.
Concerned Parent & Gun Owner January 14, 2013 at 06:36 PM
S - according to an April 2011 report by the CT Office of Legislative Reseach, the are likely more then THREE MILLION high capacity magazines in the State of Connecticut at this time. However, the NSSF suggests that the actual number may be upwards of TEN MILLION. Mags are made of steel, aluminum and plastic. Stored correctly, a mag can have a useful life expectancy in excess of a humans. Mags made in the 1920s are still serviceable today. I have fired guns that old and their mags are in fine shape. Across the country, there is no accurate count of the number of mags in public hands but on estimate I read suggested 500 MILLION. S, you can believe what you want and delude yourself and your neighbors that a mag limit will make us all safer (including my four school age children). But a ban now, without confiscation, will have no impact on the availability of mags for generations other than increasing costs. Oh, and if mags were able to rust into inoperability over a,limited number of years, do you know how easy it is to make mags in your average machine shop. They are only bent metal and springs. If drug cartels can build submarines, how hard to make illegal mags? So don't tell me we need to pass an unenforcable law offering little impact on safety, no impact on the lawless and potentially sacrifice my family's safety. And don't lecture me from an uninformed position on how many bullets is too many in my concealed pistol. It is a right, not a need!
Siwanoy January 14, 2013 at 06:48 PM
As I suspected, your not living in reality, just like you had to make up the argument of an all out gun ban, you try to make Connecticut similar to cartel havens where the cartels are building submarines.
Concerned Parent & Gun Owner January 14, 2013 at 06:57 PM
I try to be curious around here but I am putting that aside for the moment. What kimpnd of idiot comment was that? My point was that if someone in the criminal element has the sophistication to make a working submarine, how hard is it to make a box magazine? There are dozens of shops strewn across CT that could perform such a simple task. S, I am new around here but you appear to be you are a troll who enjoys denigrating and throwing invective without advancing the discussion. You type ignores reasoned arguments as evidenced by you seizing one line in my response to mischaracterize. Come on, be a big boy and address how we get past millions of mags without an outright ban. And then go back to the main point that the lawless will get what they want, even if it has to be stolen from the military. Yes friend, if the bad guys can't get what they want in the civilian market, they will either steal if from Uncle Sam or import it from abroad. Either way, limiting mags for my pistols and rifles will have zero impact on anyone's safety. Outta here.....
Concerned Parent & Gun Owner January 14, 2013 at 06:59 PM
Sorry, "curious" above was supposed to be "curtious". iPad autocorrect strikes again.....
COSMO P January 14, 2013 at 10:25 PM
@ Siwanoy GOT IT YOU WANT legal gun owners to become felons with a stroke of a pen. WOW talk about a NUT JOB. You Gun Grabbers Beat All
COSMO P January 14, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Yes you are you are just full of @#$%

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »