Letter to the Editor: Review Civil Commitment Laws In the Wake of Sandy Hook Tragedy

Letters to the Editor are published as a courtesy and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Insider staff.
Letter to the Editor:

The dialogue in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings has focused on regulating guns. There are other issues associated with Sandy Hook that have received no attention, but are equally important. There is no dialogue regarding the fact that had the shooter, Adam Lanza, lived he would not have faced the death penalty for killing twenty children and six adults because Connecticut repealed its death penalty last year. It could be argued that Lanza was mentally unstable, but there is no discussion about the impact of changes in the laws with respect to civil commitments. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1979 decision in Addington v. Texas raised the bar for civil commitments from a fair preponderance of the evidence to a clear and convincing standard thereby making it extremely difficult to commit mentally unstable persons. In fact, the homeless epidemic of the 1980’s coincided with the ruling in Addington. It is not unfair to wonder whether Addington set the bar for civil commitments too high. James Holmes, who killed twelve people in Colorado, was also mentally disturbed. Yet, dialogue on dealing with people who are dangerously mentally ill seems to be off the table just as much as the death penalty.

Wyatt Kopp, CT Resident

Gun Control Rally at Capital Today

CCDL meets monthly at the Elks in Middletown

 











  Local  newspapers are reporting thousands will gather on the steps of Connecticut's Capital today in support of stricter gun laws. Democrat and Republican legislators and every side of the issue are expected to attend portions of the day.

 March for Change, a citizens' gun control group that came to be in the wake of the Newtown  school shooting tragedy on Dec. 14, has chosen today, Valentine's day & two month anniversary of the massacre to gather at the Capital. March for Change wishes to limit assault weapons, ammunition and place other barriers they believe will prevent violence. Groups that oppose stricter gun laws are also expected to have a presence as well.

CCDL has compiled a list of gun control laws on the table by the General Assembly's Office of Legislative Research as of February 14, 2013 in Connecticut.
http://ccdl.us/blog/2013/02/14/olr-report-on-2013-gun-bills/
We made a pdf of the list from the blog and have it available for downloading and easy printing here

See our numerous previous guest essays & videos on the topic : "What does the Second Amendment Mean to you?"

Wesleyan to host Gun Violence Panel

Guns and Gun Violence: Crisis, Policy and Politics

Date: Wednesday, February 6
Time: 7:30PM
Place: Center for the Arts Hall
Cost: FREE (Open to the Public)

Panelists:
Saul Cornell, Fordham University
Kristin Goss, Duke University
Matthew Miller, Harvard University

Chair: Leah Wright, Wesleyan University

Moderator: John Dankosky, WNPR

For directions, please click here.

For panelist bios, please click here.

For poster image, please click here.

(Sources) MSN & Today Show: Adam Lanza

An AR-15, or the so-called "Assault Weapon", was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks (December 11, 2013) earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that pol...ice found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used. The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an Assault Rifle as the media has charged. I remember in the initial hours of this shooting, the Police said they found the rifle in the car. But the Administration-controlled MSM had a pre-planned attack already waiting, to ban so-called assault weapons and jumped on that line of reporting, knowing it was a lie, which included people like Piers Morgan who said the shooter used an AR-15 that shoots hundreds of rounds per minute, as if it were a machine gun. Could it be that the Democrat Liberals and THEIR MEDIA were pushing for the new law, hoping they could do it, before the Coroner released the info? Absolutely.
Sometimes we post articles like this for discussion purposes, not necessarily because it is our belief- The point? To prove that the degree of scrutiny readers apply has a lot to do with the source- MSN initially generated this theory yet are not being judged so severely like other sources- another point of discussion.

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

Winsley: Take the 2nd Amendment as Seriously as the 1st or Shut up! (It could be the law)

Re-posted from the blog of conservative commentator and challenger to Senator Rosa DeLauro last election cycle Wayne Winsley. Republished as a courtesy to readers and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Insider staff.

Originally posted on Winsley's blog below: 

 Take the 2nd Amendment as Seriously as the 1st or Shut Up! (It could be the law)

To those strident voices who are, in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, calling for the abolition of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it is old and outdated, I offer this.

The 1st Amendment, ratified 222 years ago, guarantees your freedom of speech. You may not like what I say, but I get to say it, AND you get to disagree with me without fear of being locked up or shut up.

The 19th Amendment, ratified 93 years ago, protects the voting rights of women. Frankly, I've heard my wife, my mother and my sister say things that make me cringe at the very idea that they get to help elect our leadership. (I love you ladies dearly) But guess what? That freedom should always remain.

In my humble opinion, the rap star Flavor Flav (google him) is as dumb as a box of rocks, but his right to enter a voting booth and fill out a ballot is sacred according to the 143 year old, 15th Amendment and it should remain so.

Only one time has the U.S. Constitution been amended in the direction of restricting freedom, that was the short-lived Eighteenth Amendment which brought us Prohibition and a flourishing black market in alcohol. It lasted only 13 years and was overruled. The people's right to drunken debauchery shall not be infringed.

Should the President be able to repeal, by executive order, the 222 year old, 2nd Amendment? The answer is no! Remember, the U.S. Constitution was written with the express purpose of limiting the power of the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot now remove amendments to suit a given agenda.

The constitution of the United States is the bedrock of our freedom and should only be amended in the direction of expanding our liberties and not restricting them.

Everyone should be concerned when government begin talking about restricting our freedoms.
Whether you have a black or brown face, whether you shave your legs before going out, like to enjoy a beer during the playoffs or blog your content or discontent with our current President, your rights are being protected.
Persons who own guns deserve to have that right protected as well.