Connecticut Senate approves gun control bills, sends to House

• 

  April 3, 2013: Paul Regish of East Hartford, Conn., holds signs as gun rights advocates enter the legislative office building at the Capitol in Hartford, Conn.AP

HARTFORD, Conn. –  The state Senate on Wednesday approved wide-ranging legislation in response to last year's deadly school shooting in Newtown, including gun control measures that ban the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines and 100 weapons that previously had been legal.

Following a respectful and at times somber debate, the Senate voted 26-10 in favor of the bill crafted by leaders from both major parties in the Democratic-controlled legislature.

The bill was to go to the House of Representatives, which was expected to pass it. It would then be sent to Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who has said he'll sign it.

The December massacre of 26 people inside Sandy Hook Elementary School, which reignited a national debate on gun control, set the stage for changes in Connecticut that may have been impossible elsewhere: The governor, who personally informed parents that their children had been killed that day, championed the cause, and legislative leaders, keenly aware of the attention on the state, struck a bipartisan agreement they want to serve as a national model.

"The tragedy in Newtown demands a powerful response, demands a response that transcends politics," said Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr., a Democrat. "It is the strongest and most comprehensive bill in the country."

The legislation adds more than 100 firearms to the state's assault weapons ban and creates what officials have called the nation's first dangerous weapon offender registry as well as eligibility rules for buying ammunition. Some parts of the bill will take effect immediately, including background checks for all firearms sales

Connecticut will join states including California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts in having the country's strongest gun control laws, said Brian Malte, director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.

"This would put Connecticut right at the top or near the top of the state with the strongest gun laws," Malte said.

Colorado and New York also passed new gun-control requirements in the wake of the Newtown shooting, in which a 20-year-old gunman used a military-style, semi-automatic rifle to kill 20 first-grade children and six educators.

Compared with Connecticut's legislation, which, for example, bans the sale or purchase of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, New York restricted magazines to seven bullets and gave owners of higher-capacity magazines a year to sell them elsewhere. Colorado banned ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.

"There are pieces that are stronger in other states, but in totality, this will be the strongest gun legislation passed in the United States," Betty Gallo, a lobbyist for Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said of the Connecticut bill.

The legislation was unveiled this week, and debate began Wednesday in the Senate.

Many senators spoke of balancing the rights of gun owners with addressing the horror of the Sandy Hook shooting. Lawmakers said they received thousands of emails and phone calls urging them to vote either for or against the bill, with veteran Sen. Joan Hartley, a Democrat, saying she's never seen a more polarizing issue at the state Capitol.

Gun rights advocates who greatly outnumbered gun-control supporters in demonstrations at the Capitol railed against the proposals as misguided and unconstitutional, occasionally chanting "No! No! No!" and "Read the bill!"

"We want them to write laws that are sensible," said Ron Pariseau, 66, of Pomfret, who was angry he'll be made a felon if he doesn't register his weapons that will no longer be sold in Connecticut. "What they're proposing will not stop anything."

In the legislature, where Democrats control both houses, leaders waited to unveil gun legislation until they struck a bipartisan deal that they say shows how the parties can work together elsewhere. They touted the package as a comprehensive response to Newtown that also addresses mental health and school security measures, including $15 million to help pay for school security infrastructure upgrades.

But momentum on federal legislation has stalled in Congress, and President Barack Obama has planned a trip to Connecticut on Monday to step up pressure to pass a bill.

A silent majority in favor of stronger gun control has emerged following the Newtown massacre, Gallo said.

Among gun control advocates are Dan and Lauren Garrett, of Hamden, wearing green shirts in honor of the Sandy Hook victims, who traveled to Hartford with their 10-month-old son, Robert, to watch the bill's passage.

Both hope lawmakers will build on the proposal.

"It's just the beginning of this bill. In six months from now, it's going to get stronger and stronger," said Dan Garrett. "I think they're watching us all over the country."

But gun rights advocates and some lawmakers questioned whether the legislation would have done anything to stop Adam Lanza, who blasted his way into Sandy Hook Elementary. State police say he fired 154 shots with a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle inside the school, then killed himself with a handgun. He had also shot to death his mother, Nancy, before going to the school, and search warrants of the Lanzas' home showed it was packed with weapons and ammunition.

In a state where gun manufacturing dates back to the Revolutionary War, law-abiding gun owners are paying the price for the actions of a deranged young man, said a Republican state senator, Tony Guglielmo.

"The problem is I can't connect the dots between Adam Lanza and the good guys. So I think we need to do something, but I guess we should be doing something that does good, not something that just feels good," he said.

View the original article here

State bills seek end to farm animal abuse videos

• 

  April 22, 2010: In this file image from video provided by the United States Humane Society, a Hallmark Meat Packing slaughter plant worker is shown attempting to force a "downed" cow onto its feet by ramming it with the blades of a forklift in Chino, Calif. State legislators across the country are introducing laws making it harder for animal welfare advocates to investigate cruelty and food safety cases.AP/Humane Society of the United States

SACRAMENTO, Calif. –  An undercover video that showed California cows struggling to stand as they were prodded to slaughter by forklifts led to the largest meat recall in U.S. history. In Vermont, a video of veal calves skinned alive and tossed like sacks of potatoes ended with the plant's closure and criminal convictions.

Now in a pushback led by the meat and poultry industries, state legislators across the country are introducing laws making it harder for animal welfare advocates to investigate cruelty and food safety cases.

Some bills make it illegal to take photographs at a farming operation. Others make it a crime for someone such as an animal welfare advocate to lie on an application to get a job at a plant.

Bills pending in California, Nebraska and Tennessee require that anyone collecting evidence of abuse turn it over to law enforcement within 24 to 48 hours — which advocates say does not allow enough time to document illegal activity under federal humane handling and food safety laws.

"We believe that folks in the agriculture community and folks from some of the humane organizations share the same concerns about animal cruelty," said Mike Zimmerman, chief of staff for Assembly Member Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, whose bill was unveiled this week. "If there's abuse taking place, there is no sense in letting it continue so you can make a video."

Patterson's bill, sponsored by the California Cattlemen's Association, would make failing to turn over video of abuse to law enforcement within 48 hours an infraction punishable by a fine.

Critics say the bills are an effort to deny consumers the ability to know how their food is produced.

"The meat industry's mantra is always that these are isolated cases, but the purpose of these bills is to prevent any pattern of abuse from being documented," said Paul Shapiro, vice president of farm animal protection for the Humane Society of the United States, which conducted the California and Vermont investigations.

In Indiana, Arkansas and Pennsylvania it would be a crime to make videos at agricultural operations.

The goal of the proposed California law, industry representatives say, is to halt any abuses quickly and get video evidence to government regulators within two days, not to impede undercover investigations by animal welfare groups.

"The people doing this aren't cops so I wouldn't think it's their job to build a case. The goal for all of us is to reduce instances of animal abuse," said David Daley, a Cattlemen vice president and professor of agricultural science at California State University-Chico.

Formal opposition to the California bill comes from the ASPCA, the Teamsters, the HSUS and dozens of others. They say these attempts by the agriculture industry to stop investigations are a part of a nationwide agenda set by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative think tank backed by business interests.

ALEC has labeled those who interfere with animal operations "terrorists," though a spokesman said he wishes now that the organization had called its legislation the "Freedom to Farm Act" rather than the "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act."

"At the end of the day it's about personal property rights or the individual right to privacy," said spokesman Bill Meierling. "You wouldn't want me coming into your home with a hidden camera."

Animal welfare advocates say all of the focus on secrecy is energy misspent.

"I wish the cattlemen actually wanted to stop cruelty, not the documenting of cruelty," said HSUS California director Jennifer Fearing. "One could think of a thousand ways for them to actually stop cruelty rather than waiting for people to make videos and turn them over."

Animal welfare advocates say law enforcement agencies do not have the time or inclination to work complex animal abuse and food safety cases, and that federal USDA inspectors in slaughter plants have turned a blind eye to abuse.

When a USDA inspector at the Vermont plant was heard in 2009 coaching a plant worker on how to avoid being shut down, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack weighed in, calling the conduct "inexcusable."

In reaction to concerns, the USDA has been working to improve enforcement of its humane handling regulations over the past two years, including establishing an ombudsman position that accepts reports of violations. Last year 24 new positions in the Food Safety Inspection Service were dedicated to humane handling, said a high-ranking food safety official not authorized to speak publicly.

That hasn't slowed investigations or the bills designed to stop them. The Arkansas bill goes further than the others and would prohibit anyone other than law enforcement from investigating animal cases.

Last year Iowa, a major egg-producing state, passed a bill making it illegal to deny being a member of an animal welfare organization on a farm job application. Utah passed one that outlaws photography.

Most of the sensational videos of abuse in recent years are shot by undercover operatives who surreptitiously apply and are hired by the meat processors for jobs within the facilities. One recorded last year by Compassion over Killing at Central Valley Meats in Hanford, Calif. showed a worker standing on a downed dairy cow's nostrils to suffocate it and others repeatedly shot in the head, prompting several fast-food hamburger to cancel contracts, at least temporarily.

Animal welfare groups say investigations take weeks because the operatives nose around only when they aren't performing the duties for which they were hired.

An HSUS investigator was in the Hallmark plant in Southern California for six weeks between October and November 2007, when the nonprofit turned over to the local district attorney evidence that included fraud in the federal school lunch program because animals too sick to walk were being slaughtered. In January 2008, HSUS released the video to force the DA to act. Two employees were convicted of cruelty charges.

Late last year, nine workers at a Wyoming pork processing facility were charged with animal cruelty after an HSUS video showed them kicking and tossing piglets and failing to euthanize a sow gravely injured by a worker while giving birth.

In 2009, HSUS spent 21 days in the Vermont slaughterhouse where male calves born to dairy cows were killed for veal.

"Believe me our investigators would like to be out of there as soon as possible. They're stoic, they're courageous, but they are not enjoying their work at all," said Mary Beth Sweetland, director of investigations for HSUS.

View the original article here

North Dakota passes most restrictive abortion bills in nation

North Dakota’s Senate passed a pair of anti-abortion measures Friday that are considered to be the most restrictive in the nation, including one that would prevent women from having an abortion based on a genetic defect. 

The measures now to go to Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple who has indicated he will sign them.

The new state laws are even more strict than one finalized last week in Arkansas that would make the procedure illegal after 12 weeks of pregnancy. One North Dakota measure would prevent women from having abortions based on a genetic defect, like Down syndrome. The other would ban doctors from performing an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected -- as early as five or six weeks. 

Republican state Rep. Bette Grande of Fargo sponsored both bills. Grande, a ninth-term legislator, is one of the more conservative lawmakers in the state. She’s pushed for controversial right-to-life issues and has been vocal about the issues.

Grande recently said she had relatives who had children born with genetic abnormalities and has been surprised at the discrimination she’s seen.

“It takes you back to Hitler, and we know where that went,” she has said. “He started going after those with abnormalities, and I think it’s an absurdity we would go back to that kind of thing."

Bette has said she doesn’t understand why there is such an uproar over banning abortions in the fifth or sixth week. According to National Right to Life, a fetus’ heartbeat begins at the 22nd day.

“Why would a heartbeat not be considered life?” she said. “It makes so much sense; we all relate life to a heartbeat, and here we have a heartbeat, so isn’t it life?”

Not everyone agrees.

“I recognize that we don't all feel the same way about abortion, but we should be able to agree that this personal decision is best made by a woman and her family, not politicians,” Elissa Berger of the ACLU wrote in a statement Thursday. “First, in Arkansas, now in North Dakota, politicians seem to have completely lost sight of this.”

Battles over abortion in the United States have seen a shift from the federal courts to statehouses in recent years.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, states in 2011 passed a record-breaking 92 new abortion restrictions. In 2012, 43 were passed – the second highest number of abortion laws.

Last week, the Arkansas legislature passed a ban on abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, which some have called a bold challenge to the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion. 

The Arkansas ban, which would make exceptions in cases of rape, incest and certain medical contingencies, is scheduled to go into effect 90 days after the current legislative session adjourns. Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe had vetoed the measure, but the legislature overrode the veto Wednesday.

Abortion rights groups have vowed to challenge the laws in court.

An Ohio bill, similar to the North Dakota and Arkansas “heartbeat” bills, was debated and defeated last year in the state Senate. The measure, which could be revived this year, fractured Ohio’s anti-abortion movement in a debate over its tactical effectiveness.

In Oklahoma, a “personhood” bill has been introduced that would ban abortions by defining human life as beginning with conception.

“When you pass a law, the end goal is surviving in court,” said Michael Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, told The Associated Press.  He predicted the Arkansas law would be struck down because it contradicted Supreme Court rulings allowing abortions prior to viability — the stage at about 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy when a fetus could survive outside the womb.

“It’s easy to say, ‘Let’s save all the babies,’” Gonidakis, an attorney, said. “But you could pass 100 bills a day, and they’ll never go into effect and save one baby’s life.”

View the original article here