Disturbing Silence on Gun Violence Prevention from CT State Senator Frantz

Even in Conn. where moderate Republicans still exist, they evidence strains of what is keeping common sense gun regulation from passing.

At his town hall meeting last week, State Senator L. Scott Frantz told a large gathering of constituents that he could not reveal his position on common sense gun regulations.   He claimed the General Assembly’s Gun Violence Prevention working group on which he serves was under a self-imposed gag order so that they could reach a “historic” bipartisan agreement. 

After that buildup, it came as a surprise that the very next day the task force released separate Democratic and Republican proposals.  Although there are areas of agreement, the Republican proposal is less comprehensive and leaves out key provisions that would help reduce the death toll from gun violence, including an expanded definition of assault weapons and limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines.

More disturbing than Sen. Frantz’s silence is that he and his Republican colleagues are so out of touch with their constituents.  A Quinnipiac University poll found overwhelming support for both tighter regulation of assault weapons and limiting magazines to ten bullets, by margins of more than 2:1.  By an even greater margin, nearly 3:1, voters support handgun registration with annual renewal.

Sen. Frantz is also out of touch with constitutional law, judging by his town hall statement that “whatever comes out of the General Assembly and is signed by the governor will withstand some serious constitutional challenges.”  Apparently three months studying the issue was not sufficient to make him aware that Justice Scalia’s District of Columbia v. Heller opinion states “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."  Pertaining to assault weapons bans, the Supreme Court goes on to say "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on...laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Neither does the Second Amendment pose problems for limiting magazine capacity. The New York Times reported that "Constitutional lawyers, including many conservatives, generally believe that limiting magazine size falls well within the boundaries of recent Supreme Court decisions on gun rights…" Had limits on magazine capacity been in place, we would likely have seen reduced death tolls at the Newtown, Tucson and Aurora massacres.

It is time for legislators to stop affording deference to the constitutional rights of gun owners without similarly recognizing the "unalienable right" of all Americans to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

On the positive side, in correspondence to individual constituents, Sen. Frantz has described himself as “a person who believes in reasonable gun control.”  Now that the cone of silence has been lifted, it is time for Sen. Frantz and the rest of the Greenwich state delegation to demonstrate leadership and actively speak out in favor of common sense gun regulations. With their support, Connecticut has a unique opportunity and the moral authority to show the country a united, bi-partisan front in the quest to reduce gun violence.

Let’s show Sen. Frantz and Reps. Camillo, Floren and Walko that the Quinnipiac poll holds true in Greenwich.  Let’s urge them to support comprehensive gun regulation (contact information for legislators can be found at the CT Against Gun Violence website, www.cagv.org).  The death toll climbs every day, the time to act is now.

Postscript: Sen. Frantz, while introducing multiple amendments to carve out restrictions on tighter regulation of firearms (which all failed), when on to vote for the tough package of gun violence prevention measures passed by the Conn. General Assembly.  Thank you Sen. Frantz.

Speak Out for Common Sense Gun Regulations

It's time for legislators to show a fraction of the courage shown by the teachers at Newtown and stand up to the gun lobby. Maybe it will cost them their jobs. At least they'll still have their lives. Unlike the thousands of victims of gun violence. It's clear to me that getting them to act will first require the "common sense majority" to speak up.  Although this op-ed is focused on Greenwich, CT where I live, the message is the same across the country.

The N.R. A. and gun rights advocates are quick to use the Constitution to defend unfettered access to even the most lethal firearms.  But before the Constitution there was the Declaration of Independence, which asserts that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including those of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It continues, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted…”

It is time now for government to protect our right to life from the threat of gun violence. It is time for politicians to put this right on the same pedestal they afford the right to bear arms. It is time for them to heed Supreme Court Justice Scalia who said that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”  The Court was clear about the need for gun regulation: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on…laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”   It even goes so far as to recognize the right of government to prohibit “the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’.”

Some are defending the status quo by claiming that common sense gun regulations won't protect us from all incidents of gun violence.  President Obama in the State of the Union address said what is obvious to most folks:  "Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country.  In fact, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all the challenges...But we were never sent here to be perfect.  We were sent here to make what difference we can..."  

Common sense regulation is urgently needed to protect the lives of Americans in their places of work, houses of worship, shopping centers, movie theaters, parks and schools.  Among these are universal background checks for gun and ammunition purchases, stricter bans on military-style assault weapons, bans on high-capacity gun magazines, and registration of firearms.  None of these restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to own guns, any more so than vehicle registration makes it impossible to own a car or TSA security checks make it impossible to board a plane.

But little is going to change unless concerned citizens speak out and demand action from politicians.  Greenwich has very effective advocates in Washington—Senators Blumenthal and Murphy, and Representative Himes—who are publicly and vocally pushing for more effective gun regulation.  But they need our support in the face of a gun lobby that not only opposes any restriction on gun ownership, but recommends a rush to arms as the solution to gun violence that kills 30,000 Americans every year.  In the words of N.R.A. executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, “The enemies of the Second Amendment will be met with unprecedented defiance, commitment and determination. We will Stand And Fight.”

The Greenwich delegation to the Connecticut State Assembly—Senator Frantz and Representatives Floren, Camillo and Walko—appear to support more effective gun regulation, but they need our encouragement.  We need them to do more than cast their votes when the time comes.  We need them to join other Connecticut legislators who are showing leadership by publicly and forcefully making the case for tighter gun laws. In the aftermath of the Newtown tragedy, Connecticut has a unique opportunity and the moral authority to convince law-abiding Americans and their political representatives that sensible limitations on gun ownership are vital to public safety.

At the March for Change rally in Hartford, one legislator noted he is being overwhelmed with email from those opposed to gun regulation.  Yet polls show that a majority of Americans, including gun owners and N.R.A. members, favor tighter gun laws.  But many politicians are hesitant to speak out and vote in favor of sensible gun regulation without hearing from this silent majority.  The time to act is now (contact information for elected officials representing Greenwich can be found at the website of the League of Women Voters of Greenwich, www.lwvg.org). 

According to Slate, at least 1,850 Americans have been killed by guns just since the Newtown massacre.  We can’t afford to wait.

Gun Regulation: Where do your legislators stand?

It is clear to me that gains in sensible gun regulation will not come easily.  If you want to see changes, I encourage you to make your position known.  The people against implementing effective means of reducing gun violence are not rethinking their positions, as Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, made abundantly clear.

Along with this letter to the editor, I have written each of my state and federal legislators to find out where they stand, pressure them to change their positions, or support them for pushing for effective gun regulation.

Here's the letter:

It is encouraging to think that the horrific massacre of children and teachers in Newtown, CT will lead to sensible gun regulation that puts the rights of ordinary citizens ahead of those of gun owners.  But it would be naïve to believe that it will happen without equal measures of sustained pressure on elected officials who dodge the issue, and strong public support for legislators who show the courage to stand up to the gun lobby.

Here in Greenwich, we have politicians of both types.  Our federal delegation of Representative Himes, Senator Blumenthal and Senator-elect Murphy have all come out with strong statements endorsing common-sense regulation to reduce the gun violence that is taking one American life every 20 minutes.

Where our state delegation stands is less clear. Reviewing the websites of Senator Frantz and Representatives Camillo and Floren, it’s difficult to determine what their position is on gun regulation, because they haven’t published anything on the issue other than expressions of shock, grief and support for the Newtown community.  While that is compassionate, it does nothing to prevent these tragedies from reoccurring. We do know from a Project Vote Smart questionnaire that in 2008 Mr. Camillo believed that in some respects Connecticut’s regulations were too stringent, because they prohibited or delayed some people from purchasing guns.

We need politicians who have a fraction of the courage that the teachers at Sandy Hook showed in protecting their kids.  So, Mr. Frantz, Mr. Camillo, Ms. Floren, and Mr. Walko, where do you stand?  Are you going to push for effective background checks, limits on numbers of guns purchased, bans on military-style guns and high-capacity gun clips, and mandatory waiting periods?  Or are you going put the desires of the gun lobby and Connecticut’s gun manufacturers ahead of children and teachers, movie-goers, shoppers and employees?  Please let us know, so we can decide if you need to be pressured or supported.

I beg to differ

I was surprised by this New York Times letter writer's lack of awareness of Republican moves to suppress voting so I sent in the following response...

Ms. Goldberg (Letters, Nov. 7) laments long lines to vote and posits that all sides will agree that it should not take hours to cast a vote.  But Republican-controlled state legislatures and Republican election officials demonstrated just the opposite.  Two of the more extreme examples were in the battleground states of Florida and Ohio. In Florida, Governor Rick Scott refused to reinstate early voting on Sunday in the face of intolerably long lines.  In Ohio, Republican secretary of state John Husted tried, unsuccessfully, to ban early voting during the final days before the election. Across the country, Republicans worked to erect barriers to voting. Ms. Goldberg’s assertion does not stand up to the facts. 

The letter I responded to:

To the Editor:

I write this letter with icy cold hands after spending more than an hour on line outside my polling place. How can our nation invest so much time and money on federal elections, only to have the voting process be managed so ineptly?

I suspect that this is one point on which all sides will agree: It should not take hours to cast a vote in a country where we have more than 200 years of experience at the polls.

SUZANNE B. GOLDBERG
New York, Nov. 6, 2012

Is Obama Good for Israel? (Yes!)

While I've always believed Obama is supportive of Israel, and committed to its security, there has been so much animosity towards him from parts of the Jewish community, I decided to look into the matter to make sure I was being objective.  I believe I am.  Here's why:

·       First, is he anti-Semitic?

o   On whether he doesn't like Jews, it would be hard to see how that's true given with whom he has surrounded himself.  Two of his three Chiefs of Staff have been Jewish: Rahm Emanuel, and Jack Lew (who is Orthodox), both strong supporters of Israel. David Axelrod, his chief political advisor, and the person to whom he has most entrusted his re-election, is Jewish

·       Security cooperation

o   "I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing in regard to our security more than anything that I can remember in the past." Ehud Barak, Israeli Minister of Defense, CNN Interview, 7/30/12

o   In 2010 Obama and Netanyahu worked closely together on secret negotiations to strike a deal with Syria.  “The fertile and close cooperation between the Obama administration and Netanyahu's government defined a peace process that was leading the Syrians to a strategic divorce from Iran and Hezbollah.”  In Praise of Netanyahu, Haartez, 10/15/12.

o   There has been an unprecedented, sustained and highly risky cooperation between U.S. and Israel on use of cyberweapons to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities.  See Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran, New York Times, 6/1/12

·       Opposition to unilateral Palestinian statehood

o   Obama blocked attempt by Palestinians to achieve member status in the United Nations

·       Negotiating from 1967 borders

o   Obama explicitly recognized need for land swaps to accommodate settlements, a point not acknowledged in Netanyahu’s criticism.

o   This is not so much a change in policy as a public statement of what the policy has been under both Clinton and George W Bush. Some analysts believe it was a tactical move to lure Palestinians back into negotiations, and pre-empt their move for statehood recognition. In 2008 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel made a similar proposal to Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority.

o   Obama’s policy statement was delivered in a much broader context which was critical of Arab governments, critical of Palestinian’s move for statehood recognition in UN and critical of the unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas.

o   See 5/19/11 and 5/22/11 New York Times articles for further analysis

·       Is the Obama administration “pro-Israel” or “anti-Israel”?

o   Long-standing supporters of Israel believe Obama’s actions and statements attest to his support of Israel, without requiring him to agree with every Israeli policy or action.  “I already knew that President Obama would never forsake the Jewish state, its security and its people. His record of performance is crystal clear and the charlatans cannot change that.” Edgar Bronfman, former president World Jewish Congress. Op-Ed: Obama has helped make Israel safer, JTA, 7/22/12.

o   “If Obama were “anti-Israel” he would not have approved the largest military aid going to Israel, he would not have authorized his U.N. representative to block Palestinian statehood and fight delegitimization, and he would not have worked with Israel and Europe to impose sanctions on Iran that are now crippling the Iranian economy.”  Daily Beast Op-Ed, 10/17/12

o   It’s easy to find facts to support one view or the other; even administrations that were considered “pro-Israel” have done things contrary to what Israel or its strongest defenders believed were right.

§  In 1981, the “pro-Israel” Reagan administration disregarded Israel’s strident objections and sold cutting-edge AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia.

§  The “anti-Israel” Carter administration was the first to give Israel billions of dollars in US foreign aid.

§  Clinton, among the most “pro-Israel” presidents ever, pressed Israel far more than his predecessors to make concessions on the Golan Heights and territories within the West Bank.

§  George W. Bush administration imposed harsh defense-related sanctions on Israel in an attempt to coerce the latter into firing then-director general of the Ministry of Defense Amos Yaron.

·       Iran, and its nuclear ambitions

o   Obama has made this a U.S. national security issue, not just an issue of protecting Israel, thus fundamentally changing the context.  “Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States,” Obama told the Atlantic.

o   Netanyahu himself said that sanctions appeared to be having an effect and, with threat of US military action, could succeed.  Israel Says Sanctions Hurt, New York Times, 1/13/12

o   Obama has been much more successful than Bush in getting international sanctions put in place, with the European Union enacting a complete embargo of Iranian oil imports.  “The round of penalties that come into full effect on Sunday, some historians say, represent one of the boldest uses of oil sanctions as a tool of coercion since the United States cut off oil exports to Japan in 1940.”  U.S. Bets New Oil Sanctions Will Change Iran’s Tune, New York Times, 6/30/12

·       Assistance to Egypt

o   “American and Israeli officials, including Michael B. Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, have sought to assure members of Congress that assistance [to Egypt] should proceed, despite reservations about the Muslim Brotherhood’s political rise. They have argued that persistently high unemployment, especially among women and young people, could undermine Mr. Morsi’s government, causing further instability in Egypt and beyond.”  To Back Democracy, U.S. Prepares to Cut $1 Billion From Egypt’s Debt, New York Times, 9/3/12

·       Hasn’t visited Israel since becoming President

o   George W. Bush didn’t visit Israel until seventh year in office

o   Ronald Regan never visited Israel

·       Obama dissed Netanyahu to French President Sarkozy

o   Not defensible, but Obama is not alone; Clinton made little secret of his disdain for the way Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu frequently backtracked on his promises.

·       Romney’s position on Israel policy

o   It’s easy to make pronouncements to curry favor, especially when merely as a candidate, repercussions are limited. Romney has no foreign policy record to stand on, so what he will or will not do with respect to Israel is unknown.

o   “Rabinovich [Israel ambassador to U.S. in 1990’s] said that Romney as president would have to take into account a broader set of factors and interests and would likely strike positions on settlements and on Iran that are very close to Obama’s.” Daily Beast, 7/27/12

Social Justice is "Un-American." Really?

Here in Greenwich, State Senator L. Scott Frantz seems to be competing with Governor Romney for who can make the most astonishing statements about their fundamental views.

“The Democrats: how fundamentally un-American of them to push for concepts such as social justice.”  These are the words used by our State Senator, L. Scott Frantz, to his supporters at the opening of the Greenwich Republican headquarters. 

Perhaps Mr. Franz has a different definition for social justice.  But in the words of a great American, Franklin D. Roosevelt, “we Americans everywhere must and shall choose the path of social justice, ...the path of faith, the path of hope and the path of love toward our fellow man.”

The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States ends with the words, “and justice for all.”  A quick read of its history makes it clear that the author was speaking about justice expansively, to include the equal treatment of citizens, and removing barriers to opportunity.  In other words, “social justice.”

Republicans’ contempt for the welfare of everyday Americans is astounding. From the top of their ticket, with Mitt Romney who believes 47% of Americans take no responsibility for their own well being, all the way down to Senator Frantz who represents Greenwich and Stamford in the CT state legislature.

I am a Democrat and proud to say I stand for social justice, a principle upon which this country was founded.  And I am proud to vote for Democratic candidates who believe it is profoundly American to care about social justice.  That includes Dan Dauplaise, the Democratic candidate for State Senate in the 36^th district running against Senator Frantz.