Shaban Explains His 'Yes' Vote on Gun Bill

The State Representative offered the reasoning behind his vote.

Today I will cast one of the most difficult votes since I became a legislator -- An Act Concerning Gun Violence and Children’s Safety.  As a father, gun owner and resident of northern Fairfield County, these issues and the tragedy that prompted this discussion weigh on me as they do all citizens of Connecticut. 

Notably, the bill is not simply a “gun bill,” it addresses school security, mental health reforms and new gun control measures as one package.  From the beginning of these discussions, my consideration and calculus has been to focus more on people than devices – and specifically, how can we best protect our children and neighbors from those who chose to use a gun to commit violence, without vilifying law abiding citizens who chose to own a gun under their inalienable rights.  This has been a difficult process.

Indeed, the initial discussion focused on broad firearms bans, confiscation and/or taxation of all forms of guns and devices regardless of owner, and regardless of whether the measure would have any impact on gun violence.  I believe that a naked ban on “assault weapons” would disproportionally impact law-abiding citizens instead of criminals, and alone would do little to protect our children or thwart the primary source of gun violence – the trafficking and use of illegal handguns.

After hundreds of hours of public testimony, committee meetings and bipartisan meetings, however, the shape of the bill package rightfully evolved a stronger focus on school security and mental health.  At the same time, the gun control portion of the bill moved away from blanket bans and confiscations and properly toward the enforcement of illegal gun trafficking laws and effective background checks.  Thus, while there are still some troublesome gun control measures in the bill, most of these measures have been reduced to minor burdens and/or inconveniences rather than improper bans and confiscation. 

Thus, as a gun owner, lawyer and legislator, I believe that the resulting gun restrictions -- both the common sense ones and the problematic ones -- are acceptable (and Constitutional) when viewed, as they must be, in conjunction with the larger package containing the reforms in school security and mental health treatment.  (Indeed, a republican motion to “divide the question” was defeated on a party line vote.)  I support the final bill because, in total and on balance, I think it will effect a positive change despite its remaining imperfections.

Here are some highlights of the new law:

  • On mental health: The new law provides for insurance parity by requiring faster coverage decisions concerning mental health and substance abuse treatment. We will also train educators in mental health “first aid,” and add new resources for schools and pediatricians to assist children and families with mental illness.
  • On school security: We will fund a competitive grant program to enable every school district to develop safety infrastructure.  We will also require the development of school security and safety plans, and establish methods to address disturbing/threatening behavior in schools.
  • On gun control: We create universal background checks, stronger safe storage laws, ban certain types of ammunition, increase sentences for gun violence, and most significantly, reinstate our illegal gun trafficking enforcement task force while also establishing the nation's first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry.  We also revoke the early release program for a host of violent criminals. I believe that these measures will enhance public safety.

Next, while the bill will enhance our current assault weapons law by curtailing future purchases of certain weapons and magazines holding more than 10 bullets, it will not effect the confiscation, taxation or banning of any existing weapon or magazine.  The current owners of the weapons and magazines that would be otherwise banned going forward can keep and use these devices, but must now register as both a method to protect their right to keep the device and to prevent these devices from getting into the wrong hands.  Of course, these last two provisions are the most problematic for many legal gun owners and from an efficacy perspective.

Of course no legislation is perfect.  Still, I believe that this compromise package will serve to protect our citizens and help those who need help, while imposing as little burden as possible on our citizens’ inalienable rights to bear arms.  While some may disagree with my vote, no one should doubt my dedication and commitment to carefully consider these difficult issues.

Bruce Johnson April 06, 2013 at 01:26 PM
Thank you, Mr. Shaban, for a balanced and coherent position on a difficult issue, and for voting your conscience when it counts.
Bill Dutton April 06, 2013 at 01:41 PM
Banning firearms with certain types of features that have nothing to do with criminal misuse and completely ignores the fact that most criminals do not use rifles in crime. This is a loss of liberty that citizens of CT will never get back. This is a dark moment for freedom.
Concerned Parent & Gun Owner April 07, 2013 at 01:52 AM
If, G_d forbid, another rampage killer curses us with another massacre, even after this ineffectual legislation is implemented, I would hope Mr. Shaban publishes another letter to tells us whether he still stands by his vote. These restrictions have not worked on California, why do people like Mr. Shaman think they will work here?


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