Bearing Witness at the Gun Violence Hearing

Advocating on the side of stricter gun laws, “Patch In” columnist Heather Borden Herve attended Monday’s Gun Violence hearing in Hartford.

Perhaps we should have expected to get shouted at. Perhaps we should have known we’d get taunted.

But it was unimaginably sad to learn that Neil Heslin, father of slain Sandy Hook 6-year-old Jessie McCord Lewis, was heckled as he spoke at Monday’s hearing for the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.

Heslin bravely offered his testimony regarding rapid-firing firearms like the one used in the slaying of his son, saying, “I still can’t see why any civilian, anybody in the room in fact, needs weapons of that sort. You’re not going to use them for hunting, even for home protection.” As the despondent father spoke, pro-gun activists in the room shouted at him, “Second Amendment!” and “Our rights will not be infringed!”

I was present in the main hearing room for part of the day. I had hoped to offer my testimony like the 1,400 other individuals who registered to speak, and join a reported 2,000 in total who came to the hearings. We all felt passionately about sharing our views with the legislators, those who felt similarly and those who disagreed.

We were energized by the democratic process, by being able to express our views to those who represented us, and by finding strength in the voices of those who felt similarly.

Those like me, who support stricter gun laws and restrictions on gun purchasing, were easily outnumbered by gun rights activists, by what seemed like 100 to 1. We had heard that CT gun groups had organized buses to pack the venue with their members. We knew it would be a tense day, but couldn’t have imagined how acrimonious it really became.

In fact it was the acrimony and the despicable behavior of a vocal fringe minority of gun rights activists that made it clear just how hostile and extreme this battle over guns really is.

Not Your Usual Day of Testimony

Typically there are no metal detectors at the buildings’ entrances, but because the day’s topic was guns they installed them, causing a long, 100-yard snaking line to get into the legislative building. In fact, it took two hours of standing outside in frigid temperatures and falling snow before we could get in and be screened.

Many in my group felt nervous, never having testified before and not knowing what to expect. Most of us there to testify about strengthening gun laws were women, allied with March for Change or One Million Moms for Gun Control.

Several of us wore green, to show support for those killed in Newtown. We talked about how likely it was that many women who planned to attend the hearing with us couldn’t, due to early dismissals many school districts called once the snowfall started sticking. I guess us moms are ‘the first line of defense’ when the kids’ plans change. It seemed the majority of the gun rights proponents were men.

Gender and gun-law positions weren’t the only differences we noticed.

On line, during testimony and through most of the day, there were many interactions with those who felt differently that felt incredibly hostile and overpowering. Most of the individuals on each side of the debate stood calmly, and treated one another respectfully, if not simply without acknowledgement. But that didn’t stop more than a handful of gun advocates from starting their bullying before getting in the building, screaming at those wearing green, “Don’t cut the line, you think you’re so privileged! We have our rights!”

The same kinds of catcalls and shouts were more apparent inside, most markedly in the overflow rooms where the testimony to legislators was televised on closed circuit video. The cheers, taunts and leers were loud each time a pro-gun speaker sat in front of the lawmakers, the looks, hisses and whispered insults were constant.

Even inside the main hearing room, where the panel’s chair regularly asked onlookers from both sides to refrain from applause and comment, the muted taunts by a vocal few gun-rights supporters against gun-safety advocates kept coming — like the hisses directed at the Rabbi from Newtown, when he talked about counseling the families of the murdered children.

We listened to mayors and legislators from urban areas talk about the kind of violence that claims the lives of their inner-city youth; we listened to the testimony of the Donnelly brother and sister, whose parents were brutally shot to death during a robbery of their Fairfield jewelry store; we listened to the young men from Southbury who survived the Aurora movie theater shooting last summer.

We listened to those on the other side, who spoke of their reasons for wanting no change to current gun laws, but nothing swayed me from my current position. If anything, I walked away feeling stronger in my convictions about the changes in gun legislation I hope to see.

Even Sensible Changes, But It’s Still Too Much For Some

I’ve articulated my beliefs that our current state and federal gun laws should be strengthened, and should be more consistently and better enforced. I’ve written it before, and I’ll write it here again:

I do not think that citizens should be stripped of their right to own a gun, especially in order to protect themselves.

But I want to clarify some areas of gun law that I think are most important to focus on:

  • We need a gun registry, just like the DMV
  • We need a gun-offender registry, just like a sex-offender registry
  • We need stronger, universal background checks, every place someone can buy a gun
  • We need stronger enforcement of current gun laws
  • We need licensing and testing requirements for gun owners and users, just like we license drivers
  • All registration and licensing needs to be renewed annually
  • There should be age limits on gun purchases
  • Assault weapons whose sole purpose is to kill, and which are more suited to be used by the military rather than by civilians, should be banned. I’m on the fence about grandfathering because I understand the futility and impracticality of it at this point.
  • Access to high-capacity magazines should be limited.

I know that the deplorable behavior I saw Monday during the hearings is an expression of rage by a vocal, fringe minority. I know that there are reasonable gun owners and NRA members, who agree on many of the points I listed above.

In fact, a recent poll conducted after the Newtown massacre found that  86% of NRA members support background checks for ALL gun sales — that all gun buyers should be required to pass a criminal background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter whom they buy it from.

I’m terrified by those who are motivated to own and amass weapons because of such extreme fear that they believe they are living under direct threat from the police, from our government. This kind of paranoia should be symptomatic of the kinds of mental illness checks everyone on the side defending fewer gun laws now seems to be clamoring for.

The Emotional Arguments

I support the need for increased attention to mental illness in this country. But I’d like to point out the irony and hypocrisy of those who say mental health should be the primary focus as a cause for such gun violence. I imagine many of those same advocates for fewer restrictions on gun access are the same people calling for reducing and eliminating funding for mental health care.

I hear the term ‘institutionalize’ a lot but I don’t hear as much talk about care, providers, programs, and the funding it takes to put that in place and keep it in place long term. In fact, perhaps we could bring the topic of healthcare (e.g. Obamacare) into this decision and see how quickly that tide turns?

In this discussion, the topic of mental health is usually tied to the kinds of gun violence associated with mass shootings. But that can’t be the only scapegoat, given the much more significant numbers of accidental gun deaths and gun violence in inner cities.

People advocating for more restrictions and regulations on gun access aren’t only upset beginning with the Newtown tragedy. We’re horrified by the daily violence seen in the inner cities, and I’m ashamed that I haven’t been more of a vocal and energetic an advocate until now.

It’s not just about mental health.

I’d love to see the fringe right as well clamoring for ways to end the killing of inner-city, mostly minority youth due to gun violence, the same way they clamor for ‘unborn children.’ In the same way they line up outside abortion clinics and protest funding for Planned Parenthood using imagery of aborted fetuses, I’d like to see them holding signs showing what the murdered children of Sandy Hook looked like, as these officers recount in a Tuesday New York Times article, or as Veronique Pozner, the mother of the youngest Newtown victim, Noah Pozner, has so eloquently described.

Speaking of parents of Newtown victims, I witnessed Mrs. Pozner’s grace first hand, watching her in the hearing room as she unwaveringly told the legislators of her hopes following the murder of her son, his friends and his teachers:

“The equation is terrifyingly simple: Faster weapons equal more fatalities. This is not about the right to bear arms. It is about the right to bear weapons with the capacity for mass destruction.”

I’ve read countless comments on Patch forums from those who bemoan the ‘emotional’ argument, as they’ve so often characterized the columns I’ve written on this in the past. It is emotional — obviously on both sides. I can’t remain coldly indifferent to the loss of life that grows every day.

So as I did Monday in Hartford, and as I will continue to do every day as long as it is necessary, I will continue to speak out, accepting the Second Amendment of the Constitution, but also to defend our right to be safe from those who have a misguided interpretation of the right to bear arms.

Thomas Crafts January 30, 2013 at 06:19 PM
No mention of the fire alarm that was conveniently pulled during the hearing to evacuate all the people who bothered to get there early enough to get a seat in the hearing room and then were kicked out. No fire trucks ever came, now what does that tell you?? I hope the crowd that replaced us was as pro gun as we were.
Julie Hekker January 30, 2013 at 06:22 PM
Thank you for attending the hearing, and for updating us with this article. After watching Neil Heslin's brave testimony, I read about a fund his family set up in his son Jesse's name (like many other Sandy Hook families in memory of their darling children). I immediately contributed to the fund, as I felt it was something I could personally do to show support for these families, to show that there are many, many Connecticut families that appreciate their strength and courage.
donkeybuster January 30, 2013 at 06:47 PM
You swallowed the propaganda just like every other knee-jerk liberal journalist. The man was not heckled. Check Breitbart or google "Media Falsely Claims Gun Activists Heckled Father of Murdered Newtown Boy." The heckling claim was based on an edited video clip. It has since been proven to be utterly false and manufactured. Please either change your story to reflect the facts or post an update to the article to acknowledge the mis-reporting.
Steve January 30, 2013 at 10:38 PM
As mentioned above, the parent was not heckled. The video is online & he asked a question of the audience twice. The 2nd time he turned to the audience & several people answered him. Now on to specific rebuttals: 1. How is a gun registry going to reduce crime? Are the drug dealers & gang members who are responsible for most shootings going to line up to register them? 2. Gun offender registry? You can go to the CT judiciary website & lookup court cases & convictions. From what I've read, well north of 50% of murders are committed by convicted felons. That doesn't necessarily mean previously convicted of a 'gun crime'. 3. Stronger how? Are you even aware of what's involved now? It seems most people who are calling for stricter purchasing requirements have never themselves purchased a firearm & don't know what's involved in the process. 4. Absolutely. There is an OLR report stating a few statistics about the lack of prosecution of crimes involving a firearm. One example is 58% of those arrested for carrying a pistol without a permit were not prosecuted. 5 & 6. Pistol permit holders already have to take safety classes & renew every 5 years. They are arrested for crimes at a rate 4-5x less than the average person. Why do you want to continue to make things more difficult for the law abiding unless you merely wish to harass them? cont...
Bryan January 30, 2013 at 10:47 PM
OMG! This has to be one of the worse pieces of liberal propaganda I have seen on Darien Patch. The way this person demonizes the people that support our Constitution and the 1st and 2nd Admendments. Heslin was not heckled. He made a statement and a supporter of the 2nd admendment replied. Read Breitbart. I am truely tired of people who say that the Right is prejudice and any other name they throw out when we voice our opinion. We may be the minority right now because of all the illegal aliens that have flooded our country but we our trying to save our rights.
Steve January 30, 2013 at 10:47 PM
7. There are already age limits on firearm purchases. 18 is the minimum for long arms (rifles & shotguns) while 21 is the limit for handguns. 8. Please explain to me in detail what an 'assault weapon' is. CT has an assault weapon ban which lists a few firearms by name & a few features which are merely cosmetic features. 9. What is 'high' capacity? Who determined that 10 rounds is the correct maximum # of rounds someone should carry? There is no study that says there are crime is higher due to the number of rounds contained in a firearm. FBI stats show that the average # of rounds fired during a crime is 2.5 for revolvers & 3.5 for semi-automatics. Finally, if so called assault weapons are so dangerous, wouldn't they be responsible for a growing # of deaths? Looking up stats for CT, from 2004-2011 all rifles (not just 'assault weapons) were responsible for a total of 2 homicides out of a total of 850. That is 0.2%. Nationally over the last 20 years, all rifles have been used in ~2.5-3% of homicides, a % that has stayed pretty steady despite modern sporting rifles like the AR15 growing to almost 50% of the rifle market. The fear mongering on these firearms is well overblown.
donkeybuster January 30, 2013 at 10:50 PM
I'm still waiting for the author to amend the story. Most of the large news outlets have correctly pulled the inaccurate report of heckling. Can the author at the Patch please respond.
Bryan January 31, 2013 at 02:17 AM
Heres a link for ya Heather http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/30/watch-media-outlets-leave-out-vital-audio-claim-newtown-dad-was-heckled-by-gun-nuts-during-testimony/


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