<![CDATA[Gary Winfield]]>

Democrats’ double standard on guns and violent crime on full display in CT hearing

March 7, 2023 by Cam Edwards Leave a Comment

While most of Monday’s mammoth Judiciary Committee hearing in Hartford was devoted to testimony about Gov. Ned Lamont’s package of anti-Second Amendment legislation, lawmakers and a few witnesses also spoke about a bill aimed at the repeat offenders who are committing an outsized portion of violent crimes in Connecticut.

That discussion was very revealing, particularly when it came to Sen. Gary Winfield, a Democrat who represents the city of New Haven and serves as co-chair of the Judiciary Committee. While Winfield has pushed gun control in the past, he’s also been cool to the idea of expanding the state’s current “assault weapons” ban to include those who lawfully purchased their firearms before the ban took effect.

“Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, co-chair of the Judiciary Committee that is crucial to the passage of gun laws, said he senses no appetite in the General Assembly to go back on the assurances made to gun owners.”
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 9, 2022

Winfield has also previously spoken in favor of things like community gun violence intervention programs and other non-law enforcement mechanisms to reduce violent crime by addressing root causes, and during Monday’s hearing he was extremely critical of the bills backed by Connecticut’s mayors, which would create the new (and vaguely-worded) crime of “serious firearm offense” and allow for repeat offenders to be held on higher bond and immediate revocation of parole or probation if arrested for a gun-related offense. In fact, Winfield touched a third-rail for Democrats and the gun control lobby, noting that many of the guys illegally carrying guns in New Haven are doing so not because they’re violent criminals, but because they want to protect themselves.

In sharp exchanges with [Hartford Mayor Luke] Bronin and New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker, Winfield complained that the bill was too broadly drawn and would create legal jeopardy for the many men who carry illegal firearms for their own protection.
“What person on the streets of Hartford who’s spending time out there, or who was in a neighborhood who used to spend time out there, doesn’t have an illegal firearm?” Winfield asked Bronin.
Bronin seemed incredulous.
“Senator, I don’t know how to answer that,” Bronin replied. “There are many people in my community who are not carrying illegal firearms.”
“Not everybody in your community,” Winfield conceded, but the ones “who might be out on the block, as we say, who might be doing things we don’t want them to do, but are not the people that are shooting up the community. We know those people. I would assume the mayor of Hartford would know what I’m talking about.”

If Winfield is as concerned with legal jeopardy for lawful gun owners as he is those who illegally possess a firearm, gun owners in Connecticut might have a powerful ally on the Judiciary Committee. And it’s worth noting that Winfield was co-chair of the committee last year when it gutted most of Lamont’s gun control proposals from an omnibus public safety bill, choosing instead to focus on community-level violence intervention programs instead. Even the anti-gun mayors stumping for the legislation to crack down on repeat offenders acknowledged how dumb it would be to crack down on law-abiding citizens while ignoring the relatively few individuals responsible for an outsized portion of the violent crimes in their communities.

Bronin, who testified via video, as did Elicker, said new gun controls were pointless without action against repeat gun offenders.
“If we don’t believe that the violation of those laws repeatedly should carry consequences, then I think those provisions are empty gestures,” Bronin said.

Well, no. They’re not empty gestures. They’re real statutes that come with real criminal penalties for violating them. They’re also all non-violent, possessory “crimes” directed against lawful gun owners in order to restrict their fundamental right to keep and bear arms as much as possible. But yeah, even in a deep-blue state it’s idiotic from both a political and constitutional perspective to pass more laws restricting the rights of responsible gun owners while turning a blind eye to repeat, prolific offenders.

The mayors’ bill, House Bill 6834, would not deny bail, which would violate the Connecticut Constitution. But it would allow prosecutors to require certain defendants to post at least 30% of a bond set by a judge — not the 7% often required by bail bond companies, which guarantee the rest.
It would define a serious gun offense as “possession of a stolen firearm or a firearm that is altered in a manner that renders the firearm unlawful, criminal possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony or the act of brandishing or shooting a firearm while threatening another person.”
Winfield, whose home in New Haven once was struck by gunfire, told Elicker that illegally possessing a gun on the streets of New Haven or Hartford should not expose young men to higher bail or the loss of parole.
“There are young folks who are out there who, whether for their sense of protection or for other reasons, have a gun,” Winfield said. “I don’t think any of those guns are legal. If they get in trouble two times with that gun, they fall under this.”

I’ve previously pointed out my own issues with the mayor’s legislation, and I get where both Winfield and the mayors are coming from. A disproportionate amount of violence really is being perpetrated by a relatively small number of individuals, but this legislation really doesn’t address the problem even if its theoretically aimed at that core group of prolific offenders. There’s a much better approach, frankly, and one that doesn’t even involve the need for lawmakers to get involved. Strategies like Operation Ceasefire also target those same individuals, but provide an opportunity to escape their gang involvement. If that opportunity isn’t taken, that’s when law enforcement gets involved, with cases being referred whenever possible to the U.S. Attorney and stiffer sentences defendants typically face in federal court. It’s a tough-on-crime approach that’s also smart-on-crime, and should appeal to both Winfield and the Connecticut mayors.

It also doesn’t involve any new gun control legislation, and if Winfield is serious about protecting the rights of those illegally carrying guns I can’t see how in good conscience he could vote in favor of any bills that criminalize the rights of those who’ve never been convicted of a felony in the first place. Of course, politicians aren’t exactly known for their logical consistency, and given the large Democratic majority Winfield’s support may not even be necessary to pass Lamont’s anti-gun owner wish list. Still, the Judiciary Committee was where the governor’s gun control bills failed last year, and given the massive opposition to this year’s proposals during Monday’s committee meeting, members of both parties have plenty of reasons to do the same with this year’s crop of civil rights infringements.