Connecticut Senate Votes for Gun Limits; House Passage Is Expected - New York Times

HARTFORD — With the memories of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School as fresh as an open wound, the Connecticut Senate passed on Wednesday what members called the nation’s most comprehensive package of gun control legislation. The House was expected to approve it later in the night.

The vote came in a deeply divided Capitol packed with angry and frustrated gun owners who arrived in buses and vans carrying signs reading “Connecticut the Un-Constitution State,” “N.R.A. Stand and Fight” and “Shall Not Be Infringed.” And it came in a state that has historically been at the heart of the American gun manufacturing industry.

But 110 days after Adam Lanza blasted his way through a locked glass door at the school and fired 154 shots in about 4 minutes with a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, killing 26 children and educators, senators voted 26 to 10 for gun, school safety and mental health legislation drawn up over the past month by a bipartisan group of legislative leaders.

Legislators called it the most divisive issue in memory and said the legislation was an imperfect response to an impossibly complex issue. Several objected to the rushed pace in which the 138 pages became available only that morning.

Donald E. Williams Jr., a Democrat from Brooklyn, Conn., and the Senate president pro tempore, began discussion of the legislation by recalling the morning of the killings, on Dec. 14, when “for a few seconds, it was hard to breathe” as people took in the news. He concluded it by saying mass killings were not solely about mental health issues, as gun advocates say, but also about firearms.

“It’s access to the weapons of war, the access to the weapons that can kill mass amounts of children or adults in our schools and in our communities,” Senator Williams said. “That’s the essential issue when it comes to mass killings.”

The Senate minority leader, John McKinney, a Republican from Fairfield who represents Newtown, where the school is, called the legislation the most important of his 14 years in the Senate and concluded by reading the names of those who died at the school.

Senator Beth Bye, a Democrat from West Hartford, choked up as she held up a picture of one victim, Ana Marquez-Greene.

“Ana Grace would have turned 7 this week,” Ms. Bye said. “Anyone who has seen her picture or heard her sing knows that our whole world lost a Connecticut treasure that day.” She added: “We can’t turn back the clock, we can only go forward. And we’ve gone forward with collaborative, innovative, groundbreaking legislation.”

Many were far less pleased, including gun owners and gun manufacturers who said the bill was too broad and focused on the wrong issues. They also criticized its becoming effective immediately, saying that put an impossible burden on manufacturers and retailers.

“It’s a mental health issue, not a firearms issue,” said Jake McGuigan, director of government relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation in Newtown. “Nothing in this legislation would have stopped what happened in this horrible tragedy in Sandy Hook.”

Asked if there were any limits he could support on the sale or possession of weapons or magazines, he said: “No. We believe in going after the individual and not the cosmetic features of firearms.”

Two gunmakers, Mark Malkowski of Stag Arms and Jonathan Scalise of Ammunition Storage Components, both in New Britain, declined to say whether they would continue to operate in the state.

The legislation includes a ban on the sale of magazines carrying 10 or more bullets and requires registration of existing ones. It also includes an expansion of the existing assault weapons ban, requires background checks on all firearms sales and sets up a registry of weapons offenders. Among the mental health measures are changes intended to require insurers to make faster decisions on coverage for mental health and substance abuse issues, a program to help educators recognize signs of mental illness and a doubling in the number of specialized treatment teams providing intensive support to people with serious mental illness.

Hundreds of opponents of the bill gathered throughout the day at Cabela’s sporting goods in East Hartford, where a line of buses supplied by the National Rifle Association waited to transport them to the Capitol. They were joined at the Capitol by supporters of the legislation, many wearing green to commemorate Sandy Hook. The two sides mingled, sometimes engaging in relatively respectful debate, often keeping their distance.

At Cabela’s, Jim and Elma Stoveken of Ridgefield brought along two of their elementary-school-age grandsons.

“We’re not crazed for guns or anything like that,” Mr. Stoveken, 73, a retired financial manager, said. “We just have guns for target shooting and home protection.”

Legislative debate was respectful and often emotional, with legislators citing constitutional, mental health and public safety issues and the proper role of government.

On the Senate floor, Senator Tony Guglielmo, a Republican from Stafford Springs, said the legislation would affect law-abiding citizens more than criminals.

“The premise is wrong,” he said. “How do you get Adam Lanza tied up with the Rockville Rod and Gun Club? That’s what I want to know.”

Two of 22 Democrats voted against the legislation, and 6 of 14 Republicans voted for it.

Senator Catherine Osten, a Democrat who represents a rural stretch of eastern Connecticut, said she supported elements of the bill but could not support adding new regulations on people who follow the law.

“I also cried when those children died that day, as everyone here did, and if I could assure those parents that this legislation would stop that from happening again, I would vote yes,” she said.

Senator Michael McLachlan, a Danbury Republican, said that much in the bill made him uncomfortable, but that the Newtown shooting “changed a lot of people’s viewpoints on a lot of things, on the preciousness of life, on the priority of our lives, and it certainly affected me in a very great way.”

“Under different circumstances, I would look at this bill very differently,” he said, “But today I’m supporting this bill in hopes that I am properly honoring Caroline Phoebe Previdi.”

View the original article here

Teachers stage ‘no confidence’ votes

29 March 2013 Last updated at 20:41 ETBy Angela Harrison Education correspondent, BBC News

Sir Michael Wilshaw was asked to be chief inspector by Michael Gove

Teachers in a major union are expected to debate no confidence votes on the Education Secretary Michael Gove and the head of England's schools' inspectorate, Ofsted.

Members of the NASUWT and National Union of Teachers are holding their annual conferences this weekend.

The NUT, meeting in Liverpool, is expected to hold votes on Mr Gove and Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw.

The NASUWT will hear calls for an overhaul or abolition of inspections.

It claims the government's education policies are "destructive" and that Ofsted inspections are undermining confidence in England's education system.

The two unions are in dispute with the government over pay, pensions and workload. A fresh wave of strikes is expected in the summer.

These will be local strikes, but national strikes are also being planned for later in the year.

The coalition has brought in widespread changes to education since it came to power three years ago, and says these will help drive up standards in England's schools.

The two big classroom teachers' unions oppose many of the changes, particularly the move towards academy and free schools and performance-related pay.

The NASUWT, meeting in Bournemouth, has published a survey of nearly 3,000 of its members, which found nearly all (95%) of respondents said the school inspection system operated "in the interests of politicians rather than the public or pupils".

Teachers have criticised Michael Gove's plan regarding pay and performance

And 80% said they agreed that the current model of school inspection "unfairly undermines public confidence in the education system".

The survey was carried out online by the union last month.

The general secretary of the NASUWT, Chris Keates, said teachers understood the need for inspection, but believed it had become too "high stakes" because a bad Ofsted rating could lead to a school being taken over or turned in to an academy.

"Teachers recognise that public services have to be accountable. They are not afraid of inspections but they feel it has become an unproductive and punitive regime," she said.

"And they are deeply concerned about the politicisation of Ofsted. It's now holding schools to account and has become a hit squad for the implementation of government policy.

"It's creating a climate of fear in schools and doing nothing to raise school standards."

'Outstanding'

Ofsted has been built up by the government, which sees it as a key way of protecting and improving standards in schools, especially since many schools are becoming academies, which are independent from local authorities.

Chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw has cut the categories schools are rated by, scrapping the "satisfactory" rating. He says all schools should be "good" or "outstanding".

He has also called for a sharper focus on teaching, saying schools should only be given the highest rating - outstanding - if they are ranked outstanding for teaching. In the past, this did not have to be the case.

'Tough message'

Sir Michael was not available to be interviewed, but a spokeswoman for Ofsted said: "Sir Michael has said from the outset any provision that is less than good is not acceptable.

"That's a tough message, especially for those schools and colleges that have been coasting. It's inevitable that when you challenge the system to do better, you will get some pushback."

She said the inspectorate had a new regional structure which gave "support as well as challenge" for schools and promoted improvement.

It was working towards its ambition of "ensuring a good education for every child".

A spokesman for the Department for Education said: "We need an education system that is on a par with the world's best.

"Our academies programme is turning around hundreds of underperforming schools, we are introducing a world class curriculum and our reforms to exams will create qualifications that will keep pace with the demands of universities and employers."

View the original article here

Proposals on England-only law votes

24 March 2013 Last updated at 20:06 ET

Westminster law-making has come to focus on England, says Sir William McKay

Legislation that affects just England should normally need backing by a majority of MPs who represent English constituencies, a report says.

The McKay Commission said such a principle should be enshrined in a resolution of the House of Commons.

The commission was launched last year to consider whether Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs should have a vote on English-only matters.

The government said it would give the report "serious consideration".

There has been controversy over the so-called West Lothian Question - the ability of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs to vote on England-only matters - for several decades, but this intensified after devolution.

In 2004, support from Scottish and Welsh MPs allowed the government to push through the introduction of university top-up fees in England.

'Double lock'

The commission concluded that the current situation was "unsustainable" and changes were needed.

It proposed the principle that Commons' decisions with a "separate and distinct effect" for England should "normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs sitting for constituencies in England".

The same would go for decisions that affected only England and Wales.

The report said the principle should be enshrined in a resolution of the House, and suggested a range of procedural changes to entrench the approach.

Specific Parliamentary time could be allocated to debating plans for England, and MPs would be given an opportunity to vote on motions endorsing or rejecting them.

Committees for scrutinising bills could also be weighted to represent the party balance in England, the report suggested.

However, the commission dismissed as "flawed and impractical" a more drastic suggestion, which would require England-only legislation to get a majority of English MPs, as well as an overall majority.

Instead of such a "double lock", the commission floated the idea of a "double count", where the proportion of English MPs supporting a Bill would be published alongside the overall result.

"If a government was seen to have failed to attract the support of a majority of MPs from England [or England and Wales] for business affecting those interests, it would be likely to sustain severe political damage," it says.

'Important issue'

Commission chairman Sir William McKay said Westminster law-making had inevitably come to focus on England, or England and Wales.

"But the processes for making law at Westminster have not significantly changed," he said.

"Surveys have shown that people in England are unhappy about the existing arrangements and support change.

"There is a feeling that England is at a disadvantage, and that it's not right that MPs representing the devolved nations should be able to vote on matters affecting England.

"The status quo clearly cannot be sustained."

A Cabinet Office spokesman said the government was "very grateful to Sir William McKay and his colleagues for their work".

"This is a very important issue, which is why the government asked this expert commission to look into it.

"We will give the report very serious consideration before we respond substantively," he said.

View the original article here

'Vote-a-rama': The Senate budget votes that tell the tale - Politico

A handful of proposed amendments on the Senate floor will matter. | AP Photo

A big chunk of the upcoming Senate budget vote-a-rama will be a waste of time — like votes on senators’ pet causes or generic partisan issues.

But there’s some good news buried in the dozens of amendments expected to come across the Senate floor in a marathon session Friday: A handful of them will matter.

Continue Reading

None of them will actually become law, but some will test support for important bills to come later this year or beyond. Others could define possible 2016 candidates. And others still could tell President Barack Obama whether he’s got a shot at a grand bargain.

(Also on POLITICO: Rare vote-a-rama set for Senate)

But to spare you sitting through the full slog, here’s a list of amendments to watch.

The Ryan budget

What it does: Democrats will offer the latest version of Paul Ryan’s budget, which the House approved Thursday.

Why it matters: Sure, it’s a messaging vote, but one with weight.

If any Senate Republicans don’t vote for it, it weakens the GOP bargaining position going into future talks.

And if they all vote for it, Democratic ad-makers will have the easiest job in the world for next year’s Senate races.

(Also on POLITICO: House passes Ryan budget)

A telling sign: Sen. Jeff Sessions doesn’t want to offer Ryan’s budget himself.

At a Thursday press conference, Sessions insisted that “I’ve supported the Ryan in the past,” but argued that the focus should stay on the Democratic plan — even though the whole point of the press conference was to call for a balanced budget. The Democrats just want to shift the focus from their budget to Ryan’s budget, he said, “and I’m not interested in doing that.”

Internet sales tax

What it does: GOP Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming is offering an amendment that endorses a bill that would help states collect their sales taxes when people buy products from out-of-state online retailers.

Why it matters: This vote isn’t likely to break along the usual partisan lines. It’s a vote of support for the Marketplace Fairness Act, a bipartisan bill, and its supporters include not just Enzi, but leading Democrats like Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — both of whom spoke in support of the amendment Thursday afternoon.

If it gets a big bipartisan vote, the amendment could put pressure on top committee chairmen — including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) — who don’t want to move ahead with the bill in its current form. “Our momentum is growing,” Klobuchar said in a Senate floor speech.

School choice

What it does: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants a vote on his amendment to promote private-school “scholarships” for low-income children. It’s based on his bill to encourage organizations to grant the scholarships by offering them tax credits.

Why it matters: It’s not really going to jump-start the school choice debate, especially in a Democratic Senate that’s wary of it. But it’s Marco Rubio — and this is the issue he chose for the star power he brings to the budget debate. That alone makes it worth watching — if not now, then for whatever he might do with the issue in 2016.

View the original article here