Two GOP gubernatorial candidates, outside the Legislature, opine on gun-control bill

Tom Foley of Greenwich, who came within 6,000 votes of defeating Dannel Malloy in the 2010 gubernatorial race, and Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, a former member of the state House of Representatives, were asked yesterday what they thought of the details of the historic gun-control legislation. The bipartisan deal was finalized by majority Democrats and potential primary opponents of Foley and Bouhgton for the 2014 GOP gubernatorial nomination, Senate Minority Leader John McKinney of Fairfield and House Minority Leader Larry Cafero.

Boughton: “I haven’t seen the actual language and haven’t been briefed like lawmakers today, but a compromise where everyone walks away a little unhappy, both gun advocates and gun-control supporters, is probably a good bill. There doesn’t seem to be any money for enforcement, but having said that, with everyone a little unhappy, I would support it.”

Foley was a little more opaque, it seems. “I thought the appropriate dialogue for a response would be to limit discussion to responses that would prevent events like Newtown in the future. It’s a tragedy to politicize this. ” He said the bill would not have changed the outcome. “Emphasis should have been on mental health” and what could have been done to prevent the shooting. When asked to list items in the bill that he disagrees with, Foley said “anything that is in there that would not have prevented” the Sandy Hook School slaughter. “They’re politicizing a tragedy.”

11 Responses

  1. Kate says:

    Another bill which was unwanted by the majority, unconstitutional and voted without reasonable review. Morons. Why are we putting up with these persons who are giving legislation without representation? From the Federal, Judicial and State…treasonous.

    for some level headed sense, please check out the Tenth Amendment center

  2. NotAmusedInCT says:

    You can’t be more opaque than that – this man wants to run for Governor a second time and he doesn’t even bother reading the bill in order to provide a more detailed and thoughtful answer than that? Come on now – Boughton admits he didn’t the bill either but at least he recognizes the importance of negotiation and compromise – we don’t need any more “my way or the highway” politicians in public office.

  3. Richard Saunders says:

    Ambassador Foley points out what SHOULD have been obvious to Gov. Malloy, all Connecticut’s legislators and anyone with an ounce of common sense, the bill will not change the outcome. Foley correctly stated he believed the emphasis should have been on mental health and what could be done to prevent insane people from being a menace to society in the future.

    In my opinion, the law is clearly unconstitutional as it “infringes” upon a law abiding citizen’s right to bear arms.

  4. Gordon Hunting says:

    Foley is the only one that is right on this matter. None of this “feel-good” legislation would have prevented the tragedy. The robots in Hartford feel the need to just do something, anything in reaction to the situation, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how in-effective: for the children…, we don’t care who we now harm just…, remember the children… at any cost.

  5. Silent Majority says:

    Our next Governor is Tom Foley. Today the actions in self promotion exploiting the deaths of these poor children by the Malloy crowd was sickening. Tom Foley will bring sanity and most importantly fiscal sanity to this state.

  6. Daria Novak says:

    Ambassador Foley gave a reasonable answer. I could not support anyone for office if he/she supported the new gun law or trashed the Constitution. To paraphrase, Amb. Foley said the legislative discussions should be limited to preventing, not politicizing, the Newtown incident. He also correctly stated that the new law would not have prevented Newtown. I also agree with him that this is a mental health issue. I got a lot out of what the Ambassador stated.

  7. Paul Improta says:

    And, what do Democrats who might primary against Malloy who aren’t legislators have to say about the bill?

    Seems to me that Foley made a rational statement. He is correct, the bill does nothing to address what occurred in Sandy Hook. It was fortuitous event for the Democrats to exploit and to seize on what has been an agenda item of theirs since the 1990s, waiting for the triggering event – pun intended – to exploit public sentiment to disarm law abiding gun owners.

    They haven’t made anyone safer, infact, they have created an environment where the crooks have the upper hand, and believe me, the crooks know that and will take advantage of it, whether it’s robbing knowingly unarmed citizens, or trafficking in now illegal weapons on the black market.

  8. John Puzzo says:

    More jibberish. Where are the great orators and men of principle today? Why do I fell I have more in common with statesmen of the past than I do with 90% of the currect busshel of clams masquerading as legislators – they are money managers and guards in this prison-in-the-open we call a state…and they are not alone.

  9. Tree says:

    Foley does not support the 2nd Amendment.

  10. M Rosato says:

    How is Foley opaque?
    I think he gave a good thoughtful response.
    Did you not like the fact that he didn’t blame the guns?

    Please, think about the evil that was Newtown.
    You cannot legislate that away, unless you are God.
    No matter how much the state tyrannizes the huddled masses, bad things will happen.
    I am sorry to have burst your bubble. And, I mean no offense, but please wake up and smell reality.
    Life is not fair.

  11. Yuppies Begone says:

    Foley showing off what a sociopath he is