Community Coalition for Responsible Gun Control Takes First Step

The public is invited to attend an organizational meeting of the Community Coalition for Responsible Gun Control, Monday, Jan. 14.

Branford resident and current Board of Education Chair Frank Carrano is inviting the public to attend an organizational meeting of the Community Coalition for Responsible Gun Control to be held at the Community House on Monday January 14 at 7 p.m. Carrano stated that the committee is independent of the BOE and also does not have town affiliation. What it does have is political ambition. State Representative Lonnie Reed as well as State Senator Edward Meyer plan on attending stated Carrano.

Immediately following the tragedy at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Carrano said he took to his personal Facebook page and expressed concern over gun control. “People were really responsive,” he said. “I felt compelled to do some follow-up,” he added and the Community Coalition for Responsible Gun Control was born.

So far there are no committee members. “Monday is really step one,” he said. Carrano said he hopes some attendees will become committee members. It’s really growing in real-time, he explained.

This week was the opening of the 2013 legislation session, explained Carrano, and he thinks it’s the perfect time for Branford to contribute to the conversation on responsible gun control and he hopes this committee can be the platform. “Anything that we can do here to add to the conversation… this would be the right time,” he said.

Carrano said the focus at the start is “really about how to make the process work so that everyone’s interests are covered.” Carrano said there are no sides of the issue – for or against guns – but he hopes all groups can work together.

Carrano said his goal for the committee is to see the discussion expand into safety for the community including the youth as well as the elderly who live alone. “I am hoping this goes beyond gun control he stated.”

Will you be attending? What are your hopes for a committee like this?

Joanne January 12, 2013 at 02:23 PM
some factshttp://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/the-ar-15-you-dont-need-one-and-they-are-too-dangerous-to-own/ both sides should read
Joanne January 12, 2013 at 02:30 PM
The ar-15 is only a tool. Demonizing a piece of steel when many many other tools could be used for mass killing ( including cars, trucks, shotguns, knifes, swords etc etc )is not only narrow minded but unproductive. Police or armed guards are needed in all schools along with bullet proof glass on doorways. I dont care how much its costs. Our kids safety is worth any price. End of story.
Mary January 12, 2013 at 10:20 PM
Sen Meyers wants to ban all guns over a single shot. So if 2 animals like the ones that broke into Dr, Petits house break into mine with the intent to brutally rape myself and my daughters and burn my house down which one should I shoot with my one bullet gun?
Jaybee January 13, 2013 at 12:21 AM
Joanne, Once again, talk to me about the California shooting the other day. The shooter comes in with a shotgun and is able to get off one shot before he is subdued, by unarmed teachers. In Newtown, the shooter is armed with a rapid fire weapon, with extended magazine. Shoots his way into the school, shoots each six year old MULTIPLE times. You are equating these two incidents as equal. If you don't know how to drive a sixteen wheeler, and you take it into a crowded parking lot, you do more damage than if you are driving a VW. Right? Let's do the police escorts and the glass as you request, with the taxes placed on the AR-15 and extended magazines. Let's place a tax on violent video games, which appears in the game stations of the killers in Newtown, Aurora and Columbine. You can have them, but you have to pay for them. Gun owners who have legally purchased their weapons should be outraged at the shooters who have used these assault rifles and extended magazines to do more damage than a knife, or sword, or shotgun. I'm not feeling your outrage. I'm fine with the bearer of arms, the hunter, the target shooter. Why aren't you guys saying we have to get these weapons out of the hands of evil and/or mentally ill people. I don't understand your rationale.
Margaret H January 13, 2013 at 01:17 AM
ar-15 is the most popular rifle in the country. Over 3 million sold. A madman stole one along with handguns. He could of did the same damage with any gun. Or a sword like in China. If you REALLY know about guns youd know that. 2 handguns with a locked door would produce the same result. An ar 15 is a semi-automatic gun. Pull the trigger it only goes boom only once. To stand on the graves of dead children to push an agenda many of these people made a career off of is disgusting. This link will teach u all alot if u really want to learn the truth. http://authentic-connecticut-republican.blogspot.com/2013/01/this-is-ar-15-rifle.html
Margaret H January 13, 2013 at 01:30 AM
the truth about the ar 15 http://authentic-connecticut-republican.blogspot.com/2013/01/this-is-ar-15-rifle.html
sam January 13, 2013 at 02:39 AM
sam January 13, 2013 at 04:02 AM
Yep, one pull one shot. Kinda like this. I'd say a bit more deadly than a sword. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-qXR42D8_E
Jaybee January 13, 2013 at 04:08 AM
Not even close to correct. The police report in Aurora documenting the 911 calls shows thirty (30) shots in twenty seven (27) seconds. The definition of a semi automatic weapon says one trigger pull equates to a shot. Am I correct in that? To equate that with a sword? Equate it to a semi automatic handgun, but you shred your own credibility by making such claims. I hunt and have good friends that own semi automatics. I do not claim to be an expert. I'm fine with AR-15 being popular. I'm fine with gun owners legally owning them. Do you understand that point? How do you keep them out of the hands of people that will use them to murder. You should be disgusted by the person in NY who bought an AR-15, and gave it to a felon who used it to kill volunteer firemen. A woman allowed her mentally disabled son to use them. But you insist on the second amendment rights I have already said you have I that I agree with. If a house is on fire, but the fire is not in your room you might sit in your chair and deny that the fire might hurt you. But to do so endangers those you might love in other rooms, and eventually, yourself. An ostrich with it's head in the sand does not see acknowledge what goes on around it. You must listen to what people on both sides say and try to understand different perspectives.
Cindy R January 13, 2013 at 02:17 PM
An ar-15 is used a lot in these killings because it is the most popular rifle in the country. And by alot I mean the ar-15 is used in LESS than 1 percent of ALL gun homicides in the country. 274 last year. Out of 350 million people. LESS THAN ONE PERCENT. The semi-auto firearm has been in wide use in this country since 1911. Its not going anywhere. So you better find the real causes.
Jaybee January 13, 2013 at 08:40 PM
350 million people don't own guns, so your arithmetic is incorrect. Without being emotional, are you discounted the recent mass killings because they are statistically insignificant? I would not agree with that. Let's look at another example. Millions of people own cars, they drive them safely every day. There have been hundreds of people killed by drunk drivers, or people that have altered conscious, either because of drugs or texting while driving, etc. Alot of people decided that even though it was statistically insignificant, they wanted to stop this killing. Now, cars don't kill people, right? Alot of work has gone into keeping those who might kill people with a car, from driving. It hasn't completely worked, but many more now live because of the attempt. A driver of a car must have a license, must register his car and keep insurance in case he hurts someone. They must also be occasionally subjected to spot checks, when law enforcement can check to see if they can operate a vehicle. The money they pay for this right partly goes to pay for the law enforcement. Many have joined in. If they see someone in a bar who can't operate a vehicle, they stop them. People's family members who are taking medication for many reasons, stop them from driving. Does that sound reasonable to you? If it does, why not do the same with guns? Run a cars VIN number nationally, the owner is known. A person with a CT driver's license can drive in CA. Do the same with guns
Maureen Bennet January 13, 2013 at 10:56 PM
HERES THE VIDEO of Sen Meyers being investigated for possession of a weapon at his public hearing this morning http://www.youtube.com/user/PALINSMITH
Bill Fasula January 13, 2013 at 11:51 PM
There IS a background check with guns but unfortunately our Connecticut laws do not allow dangerous people to get committed against their will and then appear on the background check. We do not need more gun laws just better mental health laws.
Facts not Opinions Pls January 14, 2013 at 12:17 PM
If this meeting is anything like yesterdays in Guilford, this will be a rant against guns and the facts will be inaccurate.
Rockland Farm January 14, 2013 at 11:33 PM
Believe it or not but I agree with Jaybee on a few things .Alot of responsible gun owners do . None of us wants another Sandy Hook .Where we disagree is the method to achieve this . And also on the differences between ones rights and ones privileges . They call it the right to Bear Arms because it is just that a right .Were as driving is a privilege . When we quote percentages comparing similar but different things we have to be careful .You can say how many people were killed by drunk drivers or you can quote how many were killed in car accidents total .You can quote how many were killed by firearms or break it down by how many by suicide ,accidental ,homicide both justified and not justified .And then you can break it down further.How many were by specific types of weapons ( so called assault weapons account for a very small percentage ) and where they occur most frequently ( more occur in places of high population density aka cities which typically have very restrictive gun laws ) . I have stated my disagreement on the extra tax on certain types of firearms and ammunition because of the burden it would place on lower income people , the right to defend oneself and family should not just be for the well off. As far using the recent California school incident as a example for not having armed security of some type at schools is foolish .That teacher was very brave and did a great thing , but was about as lucky as you can get . cont.
Rockland Farm January 15, 2013 at 12:15 AM
One last thing I agree with Jaybee on He stated how our drivers licence is valid in Cali. and every state for that matter . And he is right and so should my pistol permit .After all I had to have a FBI background check for my pistol permit ,not so for my drivers license .
Walton Burns January 15, 2013 at 02:49 AM
The arguments put forth to defend no restrictions to gun laws simply make no sense. First of all, I think everyone agrees we need some regulations on arms. I don't know anyone who thinks anyone should be able to buy any weapon they want. No one thinks a five year old should be able to buy a rocket launcher. I think most people agree to song kind of criminal background check as well. Rights can be abridged without being denied. Also according to the ninth amendment, there's no reason to assume we don't have the right to drink or drive just because it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. And the argument that a gun is just a tool is the same as saying narcotics are just tools. We might as well not discriminate between alcohol, cocaine, and anti-depressants. They are all mood altering substances. Demonizing a plant by-product like cocaine is ridiculous.
Rockland Farm January 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM
Walton if you kept comments to reality instead of fantasies like five year olds with rocket launchers your input would carry more weight . If you had a actual working knowledge of firearms and firearm laws you would know what is legal to own and what is legal to do . Do you know what kind of background checks are currently required ? The point pro-gun people try to make is that the problem lies in the irresponsible use of anything . A small percentage of people use guns irresponsibly and people like you want to ban them . People use cars and alcohol irresponsibly and people say we must teach them not to be irresponsible yet no one rushes to ban them .Look how well prohibition worked . Drugs like cocaine are already illegal ,hows that war on drugs going for ya ! Last I checked murder is illegal as well .Good thing we know that bad guys and crazy people follow the letter of the law . Makes perfect sense to punish the many for the misdeeds of the few! Something tells me asking you for common sense solutions to keeping criminals and mentally unstable people from getting ahold of guns would be as productive as calling PETA for a meatloaf recipe .
Walton Burns January 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM
I'm not saying we should ban them. I'm saying we should regulate them better. Big difference. We already regulate guns exactly as you say. What's wrong with cleaning up a few legal loopholes?
Rockland Farm January 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM
I noticed the second cont. part of my longer post is missing it somehow did not get posted . I will make my best effort to re-post later today . To all the people who are on the fence and have not formed a opinion on how to prevent further tragedies. We need to do things that really work .So I encourage you to look at the facts and become informed .Don't go to any pro/anti web sites and look for info info that is not bias .If you want actual crime /firearm stats go to the FBI web site .If someone tells you a area in the country or world has high/low violent crime first check if is in fact true and then check on why . In other words educate yourselves and make a informed decision . It is a emotional topic and it is hard not to let emotions cloud our judgement . Don't let some politician who will tell you what ever you want to hear to get your vote sway your judgement . If you are going to take the time to have and voice a opinion ,take the time to have all the facts from both sides not just the ones that some pick and choose or distort . Remember who the good guys and bad guys really are . Lets not let our politicians get away with passing some do nothing feel good laws that don't keep our kids any safer for the sake of a photo opp. Get your facts from reliable sources .
Rockland Farm January 15, 2013 at 12:33 PM
I agree in part .But the problem I see is coming to agreement on what is a loophole and what should be permitted . I actually have no problem with background checks at gun shows . But if you are going to tell me larger capacity magazines are a loophole then we are going to disagree . I just have a problem with punishing a large group of people for something a small group did . If a small group of kids are misbehaving on the school bus we should kick those kids off the bus , we don't kick all the kids off the bus and claim we solved the problem of misbehaving on school buses .
donald n. mei January 15, 2013 at 06:22 PM
I want to thank Frank Carrano for his efforts. I attended and spoke at the meeting. For the record, I am a gun owner: Ive been target and trap shooting since I joined the Notre Dame HS rifle team fifty years ago. Im not an NRA member though I have been in the past. I thought the meeting went reasonably well. A number of our local politicians attended and I think Representatives Widlitz and Reed came with open minds to get a sense of what their constituents feel. A representative from Congresswoman DeLauros office came and read a statement that was replete with the kind of inane comments people make when they really dont know what they are talking about. Not much hope for rational discussion there. Ed Meyer came too and unfortunately, he too failed to come with an open mind. That was obvious at the outset when he dismissed out of hand any discussion about staioning police officers in schools because of the cost involved. He said he was told by the Guilford chief it would cost Guilford one million dollars a year. I asked him what Guilford's budget was; he didnt know. I do: its $83 million. Adding one million to that would be about a 1.25% increase which translates into additional cost per household to about $50 to $75 annually, depending on the property tax rate. Seems like a small amount for the added security.
donald n. mei January 15, 2013 at 06:29 PM
Part 2. Senator Meyer also brought along copies of his senate bill 543 which proposes to make it a felony to have anything other than a single shot firearm. It's an absurd piece of legislation which he knows full well has no chance of passage. Sad too, because by doing so, he purposely provokes even the most moderate of gun owners because they know its absurd. It certainly isn't the kind of action that lends itself to establishing a dialogue. I do feel encouraged by the meeting. A number of people made the point that the focal point of the discussion should be violence and how to limit it. Mental heath issues, cultural issues, video games and firearms are all part of the mix. The key seems to be straightforward honesty; no cliches, no pandering. If we do that we might get somewhere.
Rockland Farm January 15, 2013 at 07:05 PM
Thanks for the update for those of us that could not attend . I have to say that I am more than a little concerned about politicians such as Meyers .They had a news conference on CTN today and even they commented on the absurdity of his bill . What a waste of valuable time . As far as the cost I know I would gladly pay that amount for the safety of our kids .Heck I spend alot more than that per year for their field trips.
Rockland Farm January 15, 2013 at 10:19 PM
cont. The unarmed Principal and teachers at Sandy Hook unfortunately show how it could go the other way . Some one stated that you can't compare a sword to a gun. I think the point was that a nut or criminal will use whatever is available to hurt you .And history has shown us that disarming the law abiding has done nothing to to disarm those that don't abide by the law .However I agree with Jaybee that we need to keep those that should not have guns from obtaining them . I happen to think the way to do this is to really enforce our existing gun laws . And to some how make it easier for those doing background checks to access mental health info .And to stop being so politically correct that people are afraid to speak up if they see a potentially dangerous situation .If a teacher sees a kid that is dangerous they can't be afraid to speak up for fear of loosing their job.We need to educate people on the proper way to store firearms so that the wrong people don't get ahold of them .The woman broke the law in NY when she sold the guns to the felon .What additional law would have kept her from selling them or giving them to him . If she didn't care about current laws why would she care about new ones . If we work together using facts and history to guide us not emotion maybe we can come up with solutions .Not just some feel good laws that do nothing but harm the law abiding .Don't punish the many for the misdeeds of the few
Walton Burns January 16, 2013 at 01:06 AM
I agree with you no one will vote for a law that limits guns to one shot, although I think limiting magazines is a good idea. However putting an armed guard in school is to me equally crazy. And if you have an open mind you might understand why. It has nothing to do with cost. It had to do with marking school as unsafe. It guarantees that anyone who feels angry enough to attack a school will come prepared for armed guards. No more 16 year old with one shotgun who fires it once. And it's like saying kids are behaving badly on the bus, let's post teachers with paddles to beat the shit out of any kid that steps out of line instead of figuring out why they are behaving badly. It's also increasing the number of guns in school. Wait til a kid figures out how to get that gun away from the guard.
donald n. mei January 16, 2013 at 03:24 AM
I have a very open mind. A couple of points. I'm simply suggesting that the idea of a police officer, not an armed rent-a-cop, in each school is an idea worth discussing and should not be dismissed out of hand. A number of schools in the state already do so. Recent experience shows that a 16 year old with a shotgun is the last person anyone is worried about.
Andy January 16, 2013 at 04:20 AM
After 9/11 we implemented the Air Marshall service. Air Marshalls are highly trained in their duties but they are also anonymous, you don't see them and the bad guys don't know what flights have them so they must assume they all do. Trained, plain-clothed police officers within schools may be the solution, keeping a more normal school environment for the kids, while allowing a much higher level of REAL security within the schools. Since the "School Marshall" is anonymous you don't need one in every single school, or they can spend time in different schools throughout the week, keeping cost down (as was a concern expressed my Mr. Meyer). Another thing to keep in mind is that most of these atrocities occur in a "gun-free zone", because these monsters are cowards and go after soft targets to commit their crimes for maximum effect. If they fear that they would be stopped or captured, maybe they would reject schools as easy targets of opportunity and do us all a favor and just end themselves. I'll use a favorite line of the gun grabbers; "If it saves just one child's life, isn't it worth it?"
Rockland Farm January 16, 2013 at 02:17 PM
Walton just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are close minded it simply means they do not agree with you. This is the type of attitude we need to get past if we are to do anything productive . I do have a hard time following your logic . You state that if we have armed guards at schools then people who attack schools would come prepared for armed guards .But recent events show that they attack schools armed already ! One of the first things a school under attack does is call 911 so a armed police response can get there ( most often too late as we know ) . So doesn't it make sense to have armed response already there ? Your school bus analogy shows me you did not understand mine so I will try again . If a bully is beating up a smaller kid on the bus you don't let it continue and tell the smaller kid as he is getting punched don't worry we will talk about it later . That doesn't help the kid getting punched at all , but does reinforce the bullys behavior . Then afterwards you punish the bully not the kid getting bullied .As far as using the 16 year old with a shotgun as a example how many ways can folks on your side of the fence spin that . To me it is real simple a nut showed up at a school with a gun and started shooting . I don't care what type of gun or how many shots . That person has crossed the line and needs to be stopped . I bet you the parents of the kid he shot wish someone was there to stop him before he shot anyone .
Rockland Farm January 16, 2013 at 02:42 PM
Cont. I think that while we go through the lengthy process of identifying the various problems these violent nut cases have and then how to address them we unfortunately have to be ready to meet force with force .Waiting for the police to arrive has proven to be ineffective . Until we as a society start to improve our behavior those of us who can need to protect those of us who can not protect themselves .There are lots of opinions on how to go about providing armed security and security in general in our schools . I have my wish list of what I would like to see and what I call my realist list of what we could probably be able to get and maintain for the long term . I am probably somewhere between Andy and Don . A officers weapon being taken from them is always a concern but they are trained in weapon retention .We have to insist what ever type of officer we have they are properly trained . There is a old saying about never bring a knife to a gun fight .


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