Blumenthal debunks falsehoods about weak gun violence prevention efforts promoted earlier in the hearing: “The poison pills in that bill make it unacceptable, and unfortunately, it is an example of…using deceptive and fig leaf measures as a ruse to prevent common sense effective gun violence prevention measures.”
[WASHINGTON, DC] – During today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence prevention, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, and Waterbury Chief of Police Fernando Spagnolo discussed laws on the books in Connecticut that are already saving lives.
“We know what works from the states that have used these measures. Connecticut and California and other states that have used risk warrants to prevent suicides as well as other gun violence. So I'd like ask Chief Spagnolo, because he has really seen it firsthand,” Blumenthal said. “If you could tell me, Chief, what these common sense measures mean to your men and women who face these dangers every day…”
“I shudder to think if we did not have background checks and some of these other opportunities in place in Connecticut, how many guns would be out there and how many shootings we would be experiencing in our community,” said Chief Spagnolo in his response.
Chief Spagnolo also spoke specifically about the Extreme Risk Protection Order statute in Connecticut – known as a risk warrant in-state – which is used to “if a person poses harm to themselves or others” with due process protections.
Blumenthal’s exchange with Chief Spagnolo is copied below.
U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): Thank you so much, Senator Durbin. Again my thanks to you for giving us the opportunity to have this extraordinarily important hearing, which is one of a series that we're going to have. The Subcommittee on the Constitution will explore more of the specific proposals like risk warrants or emergency protection orders, and background checks, safe storage. Who can be against safe storage standards, and other measures that are based on common sense and fully constitutional?
I wanted to clarify the record on the Grassley-Cruz bill. We had a little lecture from Senator Cruz on the virtues of this bill. Actually, it has a number of poison pills. For example, it would only prohibit straw purchases if prosecutors could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the purchaser knew that the recipient was prohibited from buying a gun, or knew the person intended to use it for a crime. That is an impossible standard as opposed to the Leahy-Collins-Durbin bill which adopts the standard of proof in 18 United States Code 22, namely reasonable cause to believe standards.
That's just one example of a bill that has some good provisions like grants of resources to states to submit records to NICS, and requiring reporting on NICS records submissions and providing additional resources to investigate. We're in favor of additional resources, but the poison pills in that bill make it unacceptable, and unfortunately, it is an example of exactly that phenomenon that I raised – using deceptive and fig leaf measures as a ruse to prevent common sense effective gun violence prevention measures.
We know what works from the states that have used these measures. Connecticut and California and other states that have used risk warrants to prevent suicides as well as other gun violence. So I'd like ask Chief Spagnolo, because he has really seen it firsthand. He has been in the Waterbury Police Department since 1992. He's been in the patrol division, the motorcycle division, the tactical drug division. He's really seen it all.
If you could tell me, Chief, what these common sense measures mean to your men and women who face these dangers every day – as did Officer Talley who tragically lost his life, and our sympathies and condolences go out to his family and the other loved ones who have lost members of their families and friends. Chief, if you could tell us what these measures mean?
Police Chief Fernando Spagnolo: Thank you, Senator. So, in Connecticut we have been pretty progressive regarding gun laws and background checks and the ability to take guns away from folks, or having folks surrender their guns that are under a protective order because of domestic violence, and the ability for a law enforcement officer to apply for a risk warrant if a person poses harm to themselves or others.
However, I get an end of shift report three times a day, every eight hours. Within that report, there isn't a day that goes by that there’s not a report of shots fired or someone, a prohitibted person, being arrested with a handgun that they should not be in possession of right here in Waterbury.
So, we've taken some measures, and I shudder to think if we did not have background checks and some of these other opportunities in place in Connecticut, how many guns would be out there and how many shootings we would be experiencing in our community.
I think that the measures in place have protected our law enforcement officers. And as importantly, they are protecting members of our community.
It's often that we use the risk warrant process to take temporarily guns away from people who have displayed that they are in the situation where they pose an imminent threat to themselves or others. And there is due process here in Connecticut behind that. I mean, it's not just a law enforcement officer goes and seizes the weapons. The paperwork is reviewed by the local district attorney and then in turn brought to a judge for approval on whether the guns can be taken in order to be heard about in a hearing, and then potentially returned to this person.
But I am very satisfied that we have those measures in place here in Connecticut. I think that they are common sense. I think states surrounding us, some of them do have progressive background check laws and other gun laws. Some don't. And we see guns that flow into, through the borders and into our community from states where folks can just go to a gun store and with a driver's license or a form of ID, purchase a gun with little to no wait time.
So, I'm proud of the work that's been done here in Connecticut. I think it keeps our community and our law enforcement officers much safer.
Blumenthal: Thank you for your testimony today, Chief, and thanks for your great work for Waterbury and the state of Connecticut. Thanks Mr. Chairman.
Original source can be found here.
