U.S. senators defend opposition to ‘Sportsmen’s Bill’

U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy (Hugh McQuaid photo)
U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy (Hugh McQuaid photo)

HARTFORD, Conn. – Connecticut’s U.S. senators were unapologetic Friday for opposing legislation that would have aided Democrats facing difficult re-elections, in an effort to debate domestic violence and gun control policy.

During a Hartford press conference, U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy explained their recent procedural vote against the so-called “Sportsmen’s Bill,” a now-defeated piece of legislation which would have expanded hunting and fishing on federal land.

According to Politico, the bill was a “political boon” to Democrats
facing re-election battles in conservative states like North Carolina where its Democratic co-sponsor Sen. Kay Hagan is seeking re-election. However, the bill fell victim to a battle over amendments on gun control and although many were proposed by Republicans, Blumenthal and Murphy tried to amending the bill as well.

See the complete story at CT News Junkie.



3 responses to “U.S. senators defend opposition to ‘Sportsmen’s Bill’”

  1. One and Done.

    These two should get married.

  2. M. Murray’s

    Previous to the vote and prior to added amendments, it appeared that this bill would pass easily and had a majority of senators supporting the bill. Unfortunately some senators now want to add unpopular amendments to good bills hoping that they can cram unwanted legislation down the throat of the citizens in this manner.

  3. M. Murray’s

    I also find it interesting that bot CT senators would even propose this legislation considering a recent vote they made and the justification for that vote. Both senators voted against a bill that would force each state to recognize a permit to carry a handgun issued by another state, much like state driver’s licenses are recognized across the country. They argued that it should be each State’s right to determine whether or not to recognize another State’s carry permit. They justified this by stating that each state has it’s own standards in issuing these permits, and some states have higher minimum standards than others. But this is also true of temporary restraining orders. Each state has it’s own standards and burdens of proof when issuing temporary restraining orders. Some states issue these in a mere allegation by one individual against another. Most do not even give the accused an opportunity to state their case or present evidence prior to a temporary order being issues. Many do not even know the allegation is made until they are served with a temporary restraining order. Some states issue temporary restraining orders without even an accusation of violence or threatened violence, but merely order an individual to stay away from a person or location. It seems like our Senators would apply a consistent thought process on temporary restraining orders as they would on permits to carry. Since each state has it’s own standards on issuance, wouldn’t it be up to each state to decide how they should be recognized other State’s orders? We are talking about taking away an individual’s constitutional rights here.

Leave a Reply

Recent Comments